Good Guys Versus Bad Guys and Being a Conscientious Objector in the Culture Wars

Jennifer Worrel

Jennifer Worrel is a transplant from the Great Plains raising two sons and a husband in Metro Atlanta. Extremely likable until you get to know her, she remains a great invite to a dinner party. She prefers peeing in the woods to peeing on private planes and was once told by her husband that she is “way funnier online.” Writes about whatever interests her, she knows a little about a lot. For fun, she enjoys cooking from scratch and watching old Milton Friedman videos on YouTube. Jennifer's thoughts are her own and do not represent the views or position of any firm or affiliate she is lucky enough to associate with.

Related Post Roulette

45 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    You are doing way better then a lot of Southern mothers. As a kid growing up in Louisiana my textbooks still called it the War of Northern Aggression, and we were fed a diet of drival about how slaves were only mistreated when they were “uppity” as if slavery wasn’t mistreatment. We almost elected David Duke governor once – my dad still has a bumper sticker that reads “Vote for the Crook – its important.” And when federal courts desegregated our city schools in 1980 roughly half my class went to private schools the next year. The White half.

    The bad guys are way easier to find n the South.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    One of the painful truths is that the bad guys are also good people. What makes the truth painful is that being a good person doesn’t make the bad any less bad.

    I think this is one of the reasons we can’t see history when we are in the middle of it. If any of us were alive in the 1850s or 1920s or 1960swe would have socialized or played cards with or sat to supper with people, good loving decent warm hearted people who beat, raped or murdered black people.

    Because when we look at those photos of lynchings or those photos of white people protesting school integration, who do we think those people were? Those white women in that photo screaming epithets at those little girls integrating a school- What do we imagine they were like?

    Do we think they were horrible awful people? Nah. I’m sure that every single one was just like all of us here. Kind, sweet natured, loving people. But “just like us” carries with it a terrible meaning because we all have within us that cruelty and evil that allows us to turn our head and close our eyes.

    We look back at speeches from people in various historical periods excusing slavery, or the German National Socialists, or the Stalinists or Jim Crow and shake our heads at how they could have been so deluded.

    But history is still happening, right now all around us. Genocide, concentration camps, bigotry, disenfranchisement…Its never stopped ever.

    And our children and grandchildren are going to be reading their history books about the early 21st century and wondering what side we were on.Report

    • veronica d in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      What do we imagine they were like?

      It’s entirely possible that they were awful people across the board. After all, terrible people exist. I’ve met quite a few. Moreover, not every white person felt inclined to show up and harass those black students. Only some white people did. Which ones? What were they like? They certainly felt plenty of hate, and this should reflect on their general character.

      If you met them, back then, if you were white, you might have found them entirely pleasant to be around. Sure. However, I’ve met plenty of pleasant people who, when you get close to them, turn out to be rather awful.

      Back in the early-nineties, my father was run out of his job at a church because he openly supported gay marriage. The people who turned against him included literally his best friend. No lie. Were those people “good.” They had seemed good to me, although I was still pretty young back then. And yet … when the rubber hit the road, they turned shitty. They put a doctrine of hate ahead of compassion and friendship.

      Were they “good people”?

      No, they were bad people.

      “By their fruits you shall know them.”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to veronica d says:

        When I was a precocious 12 year old during the annual reading of the Passion play, where the priest plays the part of Jesus and the congregation plays the part of the mob, I found it annoying that we were forced to shout “Crucify him!”.

        Because, I thought, if I were alive then, well, by golly, I would be nice to Jesus, and stand up for him and be a good person. But that’s when I had a mini-epiphany and realized that no, I wouldn’t have done that at all.

        Because even at that tender age I realized that I liked being a part of the group, and liked the conventional wisdom and that the entire purpose of the Gospel reading was to drive home the point that we all, every last one of us, is fallible and weak and we all oftentimes take part in massive, systemic cruelty and injustice.Report

        • veronica d in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          I’ve been that person also. I’m not proud of it. In fact, I feel some shame for it — as is appropriate. We have the emotions of guilt and shame for a reason. Sometimes we do a thing where we ought to feel guilt or shame.

          The saving grace is I was young, and feeling ashamed is unpleasant, and thus I don’t want to feel shame, and in turn I work to be better. The fact is, I could be like that again, but I don’t want to. I have the capacity for evil, and it horrifies me.

          I wonder if those women harassing those black students ever grew enough to feel ashamed.

          Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.

          “But Veronica!, don’t you think people can grow and change?”

          Yes I do, but they have to actually do that. The capacity for change is not the same as actually changing.Report

      • Jennifer Worrel in reply to veronica d says:

        I kind of like the doctrine of Martin Luther on this (and only offer it up here because the example includes reference to church activities):

        Simul justus et peccator / Simultaneously Saint and Sinner / I am a Saint and Sinner, and so are you.

        I’m sorry about the loss of your dad’s friend and his experience at church.Report

        • veronica d in reply to Jennifer Worrel says:

          I’m sorry about the loss of your dad’s friend and his experience at church.

          Thank you for saying so. The good news is he bounced back, by finding another church across state where they had an active gay outreach program. I admire him very much.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Very well put.Report

    • Jennifer Worrel in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Really great perspective; I totally agree.

      “Just like us” has the added darker side: just like them.

      Sobering, indeed.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      My 7th grade life science teacher used to intone regularly that “nature is gradational – man classifies.” Seems a pertinent add to your astute observations.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Were it so that evil was always a caricature. But it’s not. Many who commit evil are heroes in their own story.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      I’m not really a fan of the banality of evil viewpoint. There is a good chance that the niceness, kindness, and sweetness of the people in the photographs depended on whom they were dealing with. A lot of them could have been extremely tribal and hostile to outsiders/others. I disagree with the notion that the bad guys are also good people. To go Godwin on you, there are photos of Nazi death camp guards joking around with each other while on leave. If it weren’t for the SS uniforms, they would look like any other 20-somethings palling around. This does not make them good people.Report

      • Damon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        ” A lot of them could have been extremely tribal and hostile to outsiders/others”

        That IS a human characteristic. It’s wildly obvious if you look around. People self gather into groups: income, race, culture, etc. They are suspicious of outsiders. These defense mechanisms have been in place for thousands of years……because they worked, and still work. The key is understanding when to suppress those feelings and when it’s time to pay attention to them.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Damon says:

          Good point. Saul’s comment implied that tribal is identical to evil.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Pinky says:

            I’m pretty sure that he’s using Russell’s Emotive Conjugation.

            I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.

            I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.

            I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.

            Dunno what the first two in the triad would be but the last is “He is tribal.”Report

            • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

              I don’t know. I think he’s consistent on this. I’d guess that every one of his comments is, in some respect, a condemnation of tribalism. If you’re implying that his tribe is those who aren’t tribal, then yes, I see the paradox, but I’m not sure that it stems from bad faith.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky says:

                I’m most immediately remembering him using the phrase “the kind of liberal too broadminded to take their own side in a fight” the other day.

                Stuck with me.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

                This is the flipside of the Conjugation. He’s way off-base when he attacks me; he’s sometimes excessive when he criticizes you; he’s probably reasonable but I don’t remember specifics when he addresses someone else.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

              Dunno what the first two in the triad would be but the last is “He is tribal.”

              I am ethnic. You are tribal. He is xenophobic.Report

  3. Greg In Ak says:

    The good guys? That is easy peasy. The North were the Good Guys and the confeds were the Bad Guys. Does that mean politics and war and people aren’t complex and rarely any one shade of good or bad. No. Life is messy. I’m sure good people fought for the Slavers and plenty of crappy people fought for the North. To save simple people the time, plenty of people in the north had racist attitudes. Well duh of course they did.

    But the overall causes of the war and it’s larger meaning seems clear to me. It’s been america’s burden and curse that we discuss the treatment of blacks and native americans with feelings of white people as most important.

    Most of the battles about statues or what to teach are proxy fights for how we remember and learn our history. It’s easier to say we should keep a statue up then argue for why a person who did terrible things should be held in a place of honor.

    On a separate note, the phrases “history is written by the winner” has a lot of truth to it but is so clearly wildly proven wrong by our discussion of the civil war. The south lost. They were crushed since they were poorly led and were far weaker then their silly ego’s thought they were. They lost the war but so much memory coalesced around their lost cause bs and they certainly managed to win against reconstruction( free black people coexisting with them). History was not written by the winners of the war because everybody writes their own history. People with printing presses can get their asses whipped in battle but still propagate their version of history. The losers are writing much of the history of the civil war.Report

    • Susara Blommetie in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      What I’ve also found interesting in discussions where the phrase ‘history gets written by the winners’ gets quoted, is that the assumption is – consistently – that the quotor identifies with the ‘losers’, not the winners.

      People absolutely LOVE feeling like they are victims, the losers, the underdog.Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    The Civil War was a war of treason in defense of slavery. The North were not fully formed saints and many abolitionists had views that were racist. But attempts to defend secession always fall flat on their face because in the end, any high minded talk of states’ rights, was largely used to defend the rights of white people to hold black people in bondage in perpetuity and to break up their families for pleasure and for profit.

    It is true that you can do a lot in historical context with spaces. From what I’ve heard, the caretakers of Montecillo are addressing Jefferson’s slaveholding and likely rape of Sally Hemmings quite well and educating people on it. However, “it belongs in a museum” can and often is a defensive canard from people who either still fondly support the war of treason in defense of slavery and/or are very reluctant to confront the legacy of the south. It is a soft peddle. You can also teach history without the monuments to the traitor Lee.

    Society can not change at the speed that makes the slowest and most reluctant to change feel safe, warm, and fuzzy. If it was forced to do that, progress would be ground to a standstill. Attitudes change as time goes on. The monuments were intended to honor slavers and the slavers’ rebellion. There is no way to complicate this or sugarcoat this or nuance it. Another thing that hurts any of the “we are just trying to teach history” is that a lot of southern legislatures are currently trying to do anything to make it so nothing about racism is ever stated again.

    https://apnews.com/article/business-florida-lawsuits-ron-desantis-racial-injustice-3ec10492b7421543315acf4491813c1bReport

    • DavidTC in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      But attempts to defend secession always fall flat on their face because in the end, any high minded talk of states’ rights, was largely used to defend the rights of white people to hold black people in bondage in perpetuity and to break up their families for pleasure and for profit.

      The slave states literally created a law, the Fugitive Slave Act, which allow their citizens to go into free states and enslave random Black people without a trial, dragging them back to their slave state with the help of the Federal government. Not just enslaved people who had fled, which is what the law claimed, but because of the lack of a trial and it requiring merely an affidavit from a white person, plenty of free Black people were just randomly pointed at and enslaved.

      Anyone who seriously utters the phrase ‘state rights’ should be punched in the mouth. It’s almost impossible to think of a worse violation of ‘states rights’ than to have some random person from another state, backed by Federal marshals, able to walk up and point at some person and say ‘Yup, that’s my property, I’ll be taking that back now’.Report

  5. Pinky says:

    We shouldn’t confuse good guys / bad guys and good causes / bad causes. We also shouldn’t be surprised when the people or the causes have shades of gray.

    We get tripped up when we try to judge people by their causes. The good person should be trying to support better causes and work to make things better overall. But it’s hard to identify those actions from a distance in time.

    That’s a lot of “things might not match” caveats. And that’s fine. There’s no real value in our judging people of the past, or the present for that matter. We can judge the quality of the causes.Report

    • Jennifer Worrel in reply to Pinky says:

      “We shouldn’t confuse good guys / bad guys and good causes / bad causes.”

      I like that; nice point.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky says:

      We shouldn’t confuse good guys / bad guys and good causes / bad causes.

      Excellent point, and it’s not always easy to do this, especially from the inside.

      Communism has never been really tried. God wants this.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Pinky says:

      There’s a lot of “judge not” and “hate the sin, love the sinner” in the idea. It’s counter-intuitive enough, but when it gets to “fight the sinner” or “shoot at the sinner across a battlefield” but still love the sinner, that requires some serious self-control.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Pinky says:

      Kids tend to use the language they have. “But who were the good guys?” shouldn’t necessarily be taken literally. Also, depending on their age, kids have limited cognitive ability to really understand nuance, so they kinda need to sort the world somewhat bluntly.

      So, if my own kids (ages 6 and 8) asked me that, I’d probably reframe and say, “Slavery was and is wrong. It is never okay to treat people that way.” I could probably layer on a bit more depending on the specific context. And then, as they age, I could layer on more and more. The answer offers them if not an objective truth, at least something I’d say is a moral truth and rooted in a value I’d absolutely want to impart (e.g., *gasp* indoctrinate *gasp*) on them.Report

  6. Slade the Leveller says:

    To answer your son’s question, George Thomas.Report

  7. Chris says:

    For a bit, I was thinking it’s odd to call oneself a “conscientious objector” while clearly taking a side, as you have, but then I thought to myself, “I imagine the WWII conscientious objectors generally thought the Nazis were bad,” so I guess that’s not unusual, though I question whether writing a post effectively showing yourself to have taken sides is the same as not fighting at all.

    Regardless, it’s important, I think, to recognize that we’ve always taken stands on who is, and who is not celebrated/honored/recognized from our history, and that taking such stands is always an inherently political act, with social, cultural, and political implications. I think a pretty good stand is that we don’t publicly celebrate or honor (in the form of statues or plaques or faces on currency, say) anyone who actively took part in slavery, genocide, or ethnic cleansing. This will mean removing from the rolls of public heroes some people who did good things (e.g., Sherman gets gone for his role in the military campaign against the Native Americans of the plains), but that’s because it’s not about whether the individual was “good” or “bad”, which is in some ways a ridiculous way of classifying individuals, but about drawing lines about what we absolutely will not honor. And while “presentism” is almost always a spurious accusation — it’s not as though abolitionist arguments hadn’t existed for centuries prior to the Civil War, and it’s not as if there weren’t people in the 19th century who objected to the way confinement of the plains nations to relatively small reservations — it is more important, as I said, to recognize that we are continually deciding whom and what to honor, and that what we choose has implications for today, because those choices make clear what and whom we value, and what and whom we do not.

    And of course, conservatives realize all this. If they didn’t, they would not be currently waging a nationwide campaign to determine what teachers can, and cannot, teach about American history (a campaign that they’ve been waging in many places, like Texas, for well over a century). If they didn’t, they wouldn’t spend so much time trying to impugn figures who are celebrated for reasons they dislike (e.g., all the attempts to use Dr. King’s personal life, or parts of his education, to make him seem unworthy of the status he’s achieved in our society).

    In conclusion, demolish the disgusting and ridiculously ugly Stone Mountain mural!Report

    • Jennifer Worrel in reply to Chris says:

      If it is of comfort, I believe they’ve stopped cleaning it so the sculpture isn’t really as visible as it used to be. Don’t forget its problematic for as much as who worked on it as for the subjects it depicts.

      I do find it curious that you believe I’m taking “a side.” The only position I’m taking is that its a child’s mind that reduces things to the simplicity of good and bad, that history is as complicated as human beings.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Chris says:

      “I imagine the WWII conscientious objectors generally thought the Nazis were bad,” so I guess that’s not unusual,

      Our recent military adventures has shown that one can think both that ISIS is bad and that the war in Afghanistan wasn’t a good idea.

      That’s something we tend to ignore in the judging of history.

      [X] is bad. Dealing with [X] might be very painful, expensive, and have side effects that are almost as bad or worse than the original problem.

      Idiots not wearing masks (or getting vaccinated) is a problem, making them do the right thing (i.e. what I want them to do) would presumably involve draconian punishments and law enforcement.

      Creating the legal machinery to carry out those draconian punishments would enable that machinery to be used for all sorts of things.Report

  8. Chris says:

    If you don’t think the paragraph beginning with ”As an observer” takes a position, I can’t imagine what you think a position looks like.Report

    • Chris in reply to Chris says:

      Sorry, that did not thread right.Report

    • Jennifer Worrel in reply to Chris says:

      Lots of people were observers of this. There was a raging pandemic.

      I am lucky enough to live where my kids can easily learn about both the horrors of slavery and the horrors of war outside the pages of a textbook.Report

      • Chris in reply to Jennifer Worrel says:

        Lots of people were observers of this, that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that “observing” it in the way that you did is not taking a pretty clear position on it, as you do throughout the piece. I mean, you’ve basically taken the position against statue removal that everyone who’s against statue removal takes, and then said you haven’t taken a position, you’re just observing. It’s not original, or unique, or profound: it’s reactionary, it’s poorly reasoned, and in demanding nuanced perspectives on history, lacks any real nuance.

        This is consistent with American conservative practice in general: seeing mainstream conservativism as neutral, and everything else (especially everything to its left) as ideological. It’s repeated every day on social media and in conservative publications. It’s been a central component of conservative views on this site for well over a decade. It’s ridiculous and counterproductive, but so ingrained in the very ideology of mainstream conservatism that I don’t see conservatives recognizing it anytime soon.Report