Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow, and I thought I was the only one not sold on Abe's greatness. In any event, I do not believe in judging historical figures by the standards of our time. He may not have liked gay people (or he may have been engaging in gay (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/12/08/rumors-surface-that-nixon-was-gay) anti-gay pathology) but he did not try to push those beliefs on the nation through legislation. His management of the nation was largely socially disinterested.

Lincoln like all of the good presidents is deified, which I do not like. He played the "reasonable racist" path until the South's paranoia after his presidential win began to force his position towards emancipation. No doubt he was one of the best US presidents we had, but he was human and was a politician just like Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and all the other good to great presidents we have had. We like to make martyr's of our presidents so much we hold John Kennedy in high regard even though he made some incredible blunders and almost pushed the big red button over Cuba. Just call people out for what they are, complex.

I disagree with your rejection of judging historical figures by our standards. It gives me this weird post-modernism vibe of "everyone is ok and nobody is wrong because we are all biased". If we are not allowed to judge by our standards, then whose standards are we going to judge by? If there is no standard, then history becomes nothing more than a list of dates and people who did things, with nothing to teach us. If we apply the standards of the time in which they lived, we are going to call the southern plantation owners like Jefferson who fought for American independence as amazing human beings?

No, we must judge people by our standard because it is the only way in which we learn from history and the only way in which we can measure progress. We can feel good about calling Jefferson out to be a hypocritical racist that kept his slaves in chains while proclaiming that all men are created equal because it shows us how far we have gotten since then. We can call Lincoln out for playing politics with the slavery issue and we can call Nixon out on all the bat **** crazy things he said in his day because that's how we progress beyond that.



I didn't mean you were frothing at the mouth :(
My bad. Sorry. :(

[Whacker]

I disagree with your rejection of judging historical figures by our standards. It gives me this weird post-modernism vibe of "everyone is ok and nobody is wrong because we are all biased". If we are not allowed to judge by our standards, then whose standards are we going to judge by? If there is no standard, then history becomes nothing more than a list of dates and people who did things, with nothing to teach us. If we apply the standards of the time in which they lived, we are going to call the southern plantation owners like Jefferson who fought for American independence as amazing human beings?

No, we must judge people by our standard because it is the only way in which we learn from history and the only way in which we can measure progress. We can feel good about calling Jefferson out to be a hypocritical racist that kept his slaves in chains while proclaiming that all men are created equal because it shows us how far we have gotten since then. We can call Lincoln out for playing politics with the slavery issue and we can call Nixon out on all the bat **** crazy things he said in his day because that's how we progress beyond that.

I agree with this as well. It's important to understand the historical social environments and contexts in which these figures lived, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't apply our evolved viewpoints to those situations. As an example, racism was widely accepted throughout the entire world during the WWII era, and it was one of the hallmarks of the NSDAP platform. It was also extremely common in the US, Japan, and most all of Europe. Just because that's the way it was back then doesn't mean it was right, nor that we can't or shouldn't judge people and their actions from that era through our modern worldviews. I loved my grandparents, but they were racist old gits and in many ways relics of a past age. Just because they were my family and I cared for them, doesn't mean that they weren't very wrong about certain things. We've had some good leaders throughout our nation's history, but that doesn't mean that these people weren't also racists, slave owners, drunks, womanizers, or warmongers.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Disagree.

Would you judge people in the past as "ignorant" based on our standards? That would be absurd. Factually they were in many ways but it's no disrespect to them.

And homophobia and racism are often merely ignorance.

Also plenty of people judge jefferson and kennedy harshly and for good reason.

[Whacker]

Disagree.

Would you judge people in the past as "ignorant" based on our standards? That would be absurd. Factually they were in many ways but it's no disrespect to them.

And homophobia and racism are often merely ignorance.

Also plenty of people judge jefferson and kennedy harshly and for good reason.

So the people that preached, lead, and fought in the Crusades were OK then? The Inquisition? Slavery? The Holocaust?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The point of history is to learn from your mistakes. There's no shame in admitting that our fore-fathers lived in a less enlightened age, but its important to remember that we're not perfect either. People who seek to gloss over the past also tend to think that the present is quite dandy. In reality, we've a lot of work to do yet.


I don't mind people who are racist and sexist. I disagree with them - let the best argument win. We are just apes in suits trying to live our lives, people can do, say, or think anything they'd like but they have to live with the consequences and compare their choices to history and empirical observation. Nothing is perfect and I'm not working towards perfection, so I don't mind when others get things really wrong. We live we die, try not to get too worked up about it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So the people that preached, lead, and fought in the Crusades were OK then? The Inquisition? Slavery? The Holocaust?

They were overly warlike, fanatically religious, greedy racists, and Nazi's. What's ok about any of that? Saying that we should judge people in the context of their age doesn't mean that they weren't really bad in the context of their age.

We should stick with simple description. "X was a homophobe in 1970", there you go. Does it sound like it isn't a significant criticism? That's because it's not. It doesn't reflect as poorly on him as it would in someone in our own times.

You wouldn't pat yourself on the bag for not believing the earth was 6000 years old would you? And judge people in olden times based on whether they did?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't mind people who are racist and sexist.
You don't mind that people are openly receptive to oppression and injustice?????



I disagree with them - let the best argument win.
Because people work like that???



We are just apes in suits just trying to live our lives,
Can apes do calculus? Can apes ever wonder what it is like to be on the moon and set out to do just that? We are not just apes in suits. Well, I guess I shouldn't speak for you.


Nothing is perfect and I'm not working towards perfection, so I don't mind when others get things really wrong. We live we day, try not to get too worked up about it.

Nobody is perfect guys. Don't get too worked up about the Holocaust. People make mistakes.


This is where I tell you that your opinion is irrelevant. And cancerous to society.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saying that we should judge people in the context of their age doesn't mean that they weren't really bad in the context of their age.

But many times it does. There are plenty of historical figures you can point to that were respected or beloved in their age that we would look back on and say, "that's wrong".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But many times it does. There are plenty of historical figures you can point to that were respected or beloved in their age that we would look back on and say, "that's wrong".

Yes. But I don't follow you. What are you disagreeing with?



I don't mind people who are racist and sexist.
You don't mind that people are openly receptive to oppression and injustice?????

The problem with the talk about racism/homophobia/sexism in this country is that too many progressives think about them in moralistic terms as "sins". There are many ways of being nasty and stupid. And often times someone's "racism" amounts to nothing more than a few ignorant beliefs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes. But I don't follow you. What are you disagreeing with?

I am saying this is why we should not judge people based on the time that they lived in but instead based on our own modern ideas. Otherwise we let too many people fall through the cracks. In his time George Washington was beloved by almost all. If we simply judge based on the standards of his own time, then yeah he was a great man for doing all the things he did including letting his slaves go which was unheard of at the time. However, this completely lets the key point go unasked which is "Why did he take so long to let his slaves go?". This is a question that stems from our own conceptions of slavery (AKA it is wrong an no one should ever have slaves for any amount of time period) whose answer may put Washington in a more unfavorable light but an overall more realistic one.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am saying this is why we should not judge people based on the time that they lived in but instead based on our own modern ideas. Otherwise we let too many people fall through the cracks. In his time George Washington was beloved by almost all. If we simply judge based on the standards of his own time, then yeah he was a great man for doing all the things he did including letting his slaves go which was unheard of at the time. However, this completely lets the key point go unasked which is "Why did he take so long to let his slaves go?". This is a question that stems from our own conceptions of slavery (AKA it is wrong an no one should ever have slaves for any amount of time period) whose answer may put Washington in a more unfavorable light but an overall more realistic one.

Hmm you're contradicting yourself.

Let's say we have X amount of hatred for someone who owns slaves today. That's "based on our modern ideas". Would you have the same of hatred for washington? No, because of the times he lived in.

He also treated his slaves much better than other people and refused to break up families. He kept slaves because his entire livelihood and social standing was based on it. What new, unfavorable light does that shed on him?

You guys are on tricky ground here and don't quite realize it. People today who are brought up in poverty in are likely to be less educated and more ignorant than middle class people. Wouldn't you agree though that our judgement should be influenced by the circumstances in which they grew up? If not, what do you think about black people compared to white people?

If you straight up judge people from the past by our standards you will most likely judge them too harshly out of ignorance of the times. Also I don't get this suggested dichotomy between saying everything was ok back then and simply using modern standards.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Let's say we have X amount of hatred for someone who owns slaves today. That's "based on our modern ideas". Would you have the same of hatred for washington? No, because of the times he lived in.

But I do. In fact, I have even more disgust in him for this particular aspect of his life because of the movement in which he was involved in and the language in which it utilized. Simply because most people either don't put 2 and 2 together or are scared of making the argument due to various reasons (public deification of Washington) does not mean they are correct in viewing Washington differently.



He also treated his slaves much better than other people and refused to break up families. He kept slaves because his entire livelihood and social standing was based on it. What new, unfavorable light does that shed on him?
It simply means that he was not above the social standards of his time which makes him a weak and wrong man in that aspect. It does not mean that we must accept his circumstances as an excuse for his behavior. By the time the Revolution ended, Washington was already a God in the public view. He could have made the decision to free his slaves then, but he didn't.

Washington signed the first Fugitive Slave Law, did social standing force him to do that?



You guys are on tricky ground here and don't quite realize it. People today who are brought up in poverty in are likely to be less educated and more ignorant than middle class people. Wouldn't you agree though that our judgement should be influenced by the circumstances in which they grew up? If not, what do you think about black people compared to white people?
No, circumstances should not alter our view on a man's actions. By allowing this, again, we risk letting people slip through the cracks of a well deserved critique and lose opportunities to improve ourselves. What we should get out of the fact that the poor are less educated and more liable to make bad/ignorant decisions is not to give partial forgiveness but to criticize even further the fact that such disparity has happened and to resolve ourselves to make sure the education gap today between the income classes shrinks through reasonable means.

Don't quite understand what you are saying about black people compared to white people.


If you straight up judge people from the past by our standards you will most likely judge them too harshly out of ignorance of the times. Also I don't get this suggested dichotomy between saying everything was ok back then and simply using modern standards.
Ignorance of the times is a weakness on both arguments. What if you didn't know that a certain action was frowned upon by society and that the individual got away with it simply because he was powerful? You might think that society approved or was neutral to said action and make a wrong judgement yourself based on the times in which he lived.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I do. In fact, I have even more disgust in him for this particular aspect of his life because of the movement in which he was involved in and the language in which it utilized. Simply because most people either don't put 2 and 2 together or are scared of making the argument due to various reasons (public deification of Washington) does not mean they are correct in viewing Washington differently.

You're wrong :no:

Someone owning slaves in modern america would be so many times worse.


It simply means that he was not above the social standards of his time

Not true.


which makes him a weak and wrong man in that aspect. It does not mean that we must accept his circumstances as an excuse for his behavior.

Your mistake is viewing this in terms of decisions and excuses. That's a bad way of judging people, the "judeo-christian trap" of moral judgement. Holistic is the only way.



No, circumstances should not alter our view on a man's actions. By allowing this, again, we risk letting people slip through the cracks of a well deserved critique and lose opportunities to improve ourselves. What we should get out of the fact that the poor are less educated and more liable to make bad/ignorant decisions is not to give partial forgiveness but to criticize even further the fact that such disparity has happened and to resolve ourselves to make sure the education gap today between the income classes shrinks through reasonable means.

Don't quite understand what you are saying about black people compared to white people.

Racist: *quotes statistics about educational achievements of black people*
ACIN: "It's good not to let them slip through the cracks of a well deserved critique, no partial forgiveness!"

????????


Ignorance of the times is a weakness on both arguments. What if you didn't know that a certain action was frowned upon by society and that the individual got away with it simply because he was powerful? You might think that society approved or was neutral to said action and make a wrong judgement yourself based on the times in which he lived.

Societal approval is not really important here...so...


Washington doesn't deserve any critique for having slaves. That's pure anachronism. Neither does Jefferson--but we can criticize his treatment of them. As the years advance we quickly reach the point where owning slaves is itself a black mark against someone. I think anyone who is disgusted with Washington has a lack of awareness of their own limitations with regards to our society.

I think the only argument here is about your dichotomizing, seeing it as all or nothing.

Can I call you ignorant for not understanding some scientific subject that we haven't advanced to yet?

****

"A critical awareness of the potentialities of man allows us to act in our own time with higher insight and vigor"--Hajo Holborn

[Greyblades]

By the time the Revolution ended, Washington was already a God in the public view. He could have made the decision to free his slaves then, but he didn't.
It most likely didnt cross his mind. At the time it was simply how things were done, he was taught it was right to own slaves as a child, his friends and family reinforced that, and both governments he worked under endorced it, slavery was an immutable fact of life and he didnt really have any reason to even consider ending it. Most people dont really think too hard about things unless there is something that triggers the persons attention, and at the time so few people protested slavery washington probably went through his life never encountering a "trigger".

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're wrong :no:

Someone owning slaves in modern america would be so many times worse.

Why? Owning slaves is wrong. It does not matter when and where someone enslaved another man. They are committing a human rights violation either way, to say that such violations were not as egregious because "it was cool back then" is just terribly wrong.




Not true.
Elaborate?




Your mistake is viewing this in terms of decisions and excuses. That's a bad way of judging people, the "judeo-christian trap" of moral judgement. Holistic is the only way.
What exactly does "holistic" entail? Because from what I can tell, looking at things holistically means that we must treat blatently bad rationale as valid in our judgement. When you try to incorporate life decisions as "part of a bigger social picture" you begin to validate those bad actions. Somali pirates are not terrible people for hijacking boats and holding people hostage and killing resistors. After all, it is a hard life there and how else can they make a living?




Racist: *quotes statistics about educational achievements of black people*
ACIN: "It's good not to let them slip through the cracks of a well deserved critique, no partial forgiveness!"

????????

Now that is a mischaracterization (is that a word?) of what I am saying. Are you really trying to equate me with pseudo scientific racist arguments?




Societal approval is not really important here...so...
My point was in countering your attempt to apologize for his actions of personal slave owning by saying it was 'societies expectations'.



Washington doesn't deserve any critique for having slaves. That's pure anachronism. Neither does Jefferson--but we can criticize his treatment of them.
Why? Why, why, why? If we recognize slavery is wrong, then what is your rationale for protecting those who made bad decisions in the past? You can call it anachronism but that isn't an argument at all. It's just your opinion on a competing idea.



As the years advance we quickly reach the point where owning slaves is itself a black mark against someone.
Is this bad?



I think anyone who is disgusted with Washington has a lack of awareness of their own limitations with regards to our society.
You make it seem like that we are not physically able to rise above society. Was Washington physically unable to let his slaves go and only when he died could he finally break free of societies chains?
Of course society affects us all. I ill not deny that Sasaki, but to fall back on what society wants as a reason for committing injustice is just silly. Everyone has a choice. Even if the right thing to do (freeing slaves) was social suicide at the time, Washington made the choice to keep owning other people.



I think the only argument here is about your dichotomizing, seeing it as all or nothing.
Nope. I said from my very first reply today that we should call people for what they are, complex. No one is a complete villian (well, a few maybe) and no one is a complete saint. However, disregarding the impact of what individuals did because you are trying to incorporate it into a larger view of social demands at the time is whitewashing history. I can say that I hate Washington for being a complete hypocrite and a disgusting slave owner and that I love him for his discipline while being the first president of the US and that overall I have an average to good view of him. And there is nothing contradictory about that view. I just simply won't lessen the bad and hype the good because they chose to not go against the flow of the times. Hell, Washington rebelled against the British army he served in and was supposed to be completely loyal to, but refusing to rebel against Virginia's slave society? Let's give him a pass for that?



Can I call you ignorant for not understanding some scientific subject that we haven't advanced to yet?

Yes. I am not aware of how to travel faster than light. If there is a way, then it is currently exists just as the ideal gas law has always existed. This is why we should work hard to learn such scientific truths, so that we are no longer ignorant of such things. Same thing with owning slaves. Owning another human being has always been wrong, and simply because everyone in a given group may not have known that at the time, does not mean they are not ignorant of it.



"A critical awareness of the potentialities of man allows us to act in our own time with higher insight and vigor"--Hajo Holborn

Exactly! By realizing that Washington committed human right errors because of the social demands of his time we can further critique ourselves and examine why we don't behave how we should on a day to day basis. From that we can improve ourselves and our society by attempting to rise above it. Washington still remains in the negative for his actions though.

[Lemur]

Owning slaves is wrong.
Gah. At the risk of Epic Thread Derailment ... I kinda disagree. If you read too much history, you'll see that slavery had a very different character in various societies. In Republican Rome, for example, slavery could function as a sort of welfare or unemployment insurance. Can't feed your family? Sell yourself into slavery as a tutor, hang out with some rich dude's kids for a decade or so, expect an early emancipation and a new patron at the end. (Beats starving to death or selling your children off as prostitutes, anyway.)

Which is not to say that I think slavery should be around. It should not. The extermination of slavery is one of the things I point to when cynics assert that nothing ever gets better.

But ... here's how I would formulate it: Slavery was extremely open to abuse. (And the way it worked in the Americas, with a racial basis and no realistic hope of emancipation, was pure evil.) But there were responsible slave owners. To draw on a modern analogy, it's like getting assigned to a job with the same boss and no hope of transfer. If you had a great boss, then it wasn't such a bad gig. If you had a bad boss? Ouch. Just ouch.

So slavery: not inherently evil, but steeply tilted toward misuse and abuse. And it seems like there was a direct correlation between the degree to which law and custom made slavery permanent and the likelihood of systemic abuse. In ancient civilizations where the border between slave and freedman was porous, things were a lot more sane.

Anyway. Forgive me Father, for I have contributed to the derailment of mine own thread.

-edit-

As long as I'm contributing to the delinquency of a thread, might as well relate a story:

When I was maybe twelve or thirteen, I was reading some text or another about Roman slaves. A detail that jumped out at me was how upper-deck galley rowing slaves would segregate from lower-deck rowers, asserting that since they were on the upper benches, they were a better class of human being. (Note that being a galley slave was pretty much a death sentence, and that a lifespan of more than two or three years was rare.)

This informed my view of human nature in a big way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gah. At the risk of Epic Thread Derailment ... I kinda disagree. If you read too much history, you'll see that slavery had a very different character in various societies. In Republican Rome, for example, slavery could function as a sort of welfare or unemployment insurance. Can't feed your family? Sell yourself into slavery as a tutor, hang out with some rich dude's kids for a decade or so, expect an early emancipation and a new patron at the end. (Beats starving to death or selling your children off as prostitutes, anyway.)

Which is not to say that I think slavery should be around. It should not. The extermination of slavery is one of the things I point to when cynics assert that nothing ever gets better.

But ... here's how I would formulate it: Slavery was extremely open to abuse. (And the way it worked in the Americas, with a racial basis and no realistic hope of emancipation, was pure evil.) But there were responsible slave owners. To draw on a modern analogy, it's like getting assigned to a job with the same boss and no hope of transfer. If you had a great boss, then it wasn't such a bad gig. If you had a bad boss? Ouch. Just ouch.

So slavery: not inherently evil, but steeply tilted toward misuse and abuse. And it seems that the more a society made slavery permanent the more likely it was to be abused. In ancient civilizations where the border between slave and freedman was porous, things were a lot more sane.

Anyway. Forgive me Father, for I have contributed to the derailment of mine own thread.

You are not talking about slavery though. You are talking about indentured servants. Which involves a contract to be agreed upon by both sides. Big difference, yes?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why? Owning slaves is wrong. It does not matter when and where someone enslaved another man. They are committing a human rights violation either way, to say that such violations were not as egregious because "it was cool back then" is just terribly wrong.

This is a problem with your moral theory. Owning slaves was unethical, nothing changes that. But our judgement of the person who owned slaves must vary considerably.

This argument stems from the inherent faults of systematic "philosophized" morality.


Elaborate?


He was above many of the social standards of his time.


What exactly does "holistic" entail? Because from what I can tell, looking at things holistically means that we must treat blatently bad rationale as valid in our judgement. When you try to incorporate life decisions as "part of a bigger social picture" you begin to validate those bad actions. Somali pirates are not terrible people for hijacking boats and holding people hostage and killing resistors. After all, it is a hard life there and how else can they make a living?


Why aren't they terrible people for doing that?



Now that is a mischaracterization (is that a word?) of what I am saying. Are you really trying to equate me with pseudo scientific racist arguments?


It's the same argument in many ways...



You make it seem like that we are not physically able to rise above society. Was Washington physically unable to let his slaves go and only when he died could he finally break free of societies chains?
Of course society affects us all. I ill not deny that Sasaki, but to fall back on what society wants as a reason for committing injustice is just silly. Everyone has a choice. Even if the right thing to do (freeing slaves) was social suicide at the time, Washington made the choice to keep owning other people.

Yes, but so what? You can't leave out the "so what" part. Why should that make me feel in a negative way towards him?



Nope. I said from my very first reply today that we should call people for what they are, complex. No one is a complete villian (well, a few maybe) and no one is a complete saint. However, disregarding the impact of what individuals did because you are trying to incorporate it into a larger view of social demands at the time is whitewashing history. I can say that I hate Washington for being a complete hypocrite and a disgusting slave owner and that I love him for his discipline while being the first president of the US and that overall I have an average to good view of him. And there is nothing contradictory about that view. I just simply won't lessen the bad and hype the good because they chose to not go against the flow of the times. Hell, Washington rebelled against the British army he served in and was supposed to be completely loyal to, but refusing to rebel against Virginia's slave society? Let's give him a pass for that?


I think we have to skip most of this and go to the moral philosophy part because otherwise we are talking past each other.

Any moral philosophy which focuses on actions and consequences is screwed up. Judeo-christian moral philosophy in particular because of the model of an omniscient god and a dichotomy between sin/not sin. We should discard all of that. It misleads us completely. It elevates as the most admirable people those who are simply incapable of harming anyone, or those who are naive and good natured in a somewhat stupid way, or those driven to self-sacrifice and self-denial.

What we should actually judge people on is their quality as a person, their overall excellence in the things that are important* (includes many "moralistic" virtues btw). People do this selectively with regards to their family and who they are going to marry (actually they do it for everyone in a kind of incoherant, they are just confused about whether it's appropriate). It should be the number one focus. You don't go "lying is wrong" and then just apply that across the board in some robotic way. It's often a difficult social judgement, and we often excuse it entirely or praise it.

In your terms, both you and I are better people than Washington simply because we never owned slaves. That's arrogance to me.


*giving respect for some actions and demanding redemption for others is a different thing entirely, also they are kind of an epistemology thing


edit: I'm formulating this stuff as I go so tell me if it comes out incoherent...

[Lemur]

You are not talking about slavery though. You are talking about indentured servants. Which involves a contract to be agreed upon by both sides. Big difference, yes?
Oh no, I'm talking about slavery. It was customary to emancipate after a decade or two of good service, but not contracted or bound by law.

(In fact, if you were a Roman who never freed slaves, you were seen as something of a weirdo. Kinda like, say, a guy who collects thousands of coupons and makes a big deal about it. You were seen as unforgivably stingy and cheap. But there was no law that said you were obliged to free anyone, ever. It was more of a social norm.)

[Lemur]

Note that many Antebellum Southerners trotted out the Ancient Romans as an example to justify the unjustifiable, as well as examples of slavery from the Old and New Testament. In my opinion, what made American slavery uniquely evil and wicked was the combination of slavery with theories of racial superiority. (In other words, "I could free Thomas, but he's a subhuman and wouldn't know what to do with freedom, so for his own good I will keep working him until he dies." This was the sort of argument actually put forward at the time.)

So slavery: prone to abuse. Racism: bad. Put them together and you get a phenomenon of mind-boggling evil.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People like to get on their "this is wicked" kicks. People live and people die, we try to do what we think is right which is usually just what everybody around us wants us to do. Sometimes somebody comes along and is really miffed by some perceived inconsistency and convinces other people to be miffed because of their sheer charismatic power. Then, logic is designed around that concept and a new sense of right and wrong is born. A man killing another man is no different from a tiger killing a man or a tree falling on a man. We can do something about it so we probably shouldn't, but I digress. When we are in the ground, I have a feeling if we look back, at whatever we or anyone else has done, if we are capable of doing so, and we will say, "well that was fun, but completely pointless". We are apes, running around, trying to figure out the existence around us as if the existence will alter in any meaningful way if we figure it out.

It's fun to throw yourself into a time period, surrounded by some strongly felt but terribly misguided sense of righteousness, and get all worked up about what they were worked up about. That's one of my favorite parts of history.

Romney 2012 - gotta keep this thread focused.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Whooo boy. This looks like this going into deeper philosophy than I am used to. But I will give it a shot anyway.


This is a problem with your moral theory. Owning slaves was unethical, nothing changes that. But our judgement of the person who owned slaves must vary considerably.
Why?



He was above many of the social standards of his time.
So why excuse him for not letting his slaves go earlier in his life? If he was above the social norms, then there really was no compelling reason for him to keep slaves other than being a bad person in that aspect of his life.




Why aren't they terrible people for doing that?
That's my point exactly! The circumstances of their life don't excuse them! I made that statement to highlight the error in trying to incorporate the social constraints of the time in our judgement.



It's the same argument in many ways...
Maybe I am dumb, but I am not seeing it. I will reread everything again though.




Yes, but so what? You can't leave out the "so what" part. Why should that make me feel in a negative way towards him?
You should feel negative towards him because when you talk about judging based on the times people lived in you are implying that the social constraints of the time leave an individual with no real choice and thus that is why we should look more kindly on said individual. But I am saying that everyone always has a choice no matter what, even if society greatly disapproves, there is a real choice. And he made the wrong one.



I think we have to skip most of this and go to the moral philosophy part because otherwise we are talking past each other.
Here is when I stumble and fail miserably with my chemistry major.



Any moral philosophy which focuses on actions and consequences is screwed up. Judeo-christian moral philosophy in particular because of the model of an omniscient god and a dichotomy between sin/not sin. We should discard all of that. It misleads us completely. It elevates as the most admirable people those who are simply incapable of harming anyone, or those who are naive and good natured in a somewhat stupid way, or those driven to self-sacrifice and self-denial.

What we should actually judge people on is their quality as a person, their overall excellence in the things that are important* (includes many "moralistic" virtues btw). People do this selectively with regards to their family and who they are going to marry (actually they do it for everyone in a kind of incoherant, they are just confused about whether it's appropriate). It should be the number one focus. You don't go "lying is wrong" and then just apply that across the board in some robotic way. It's often a difficult social judgement, and we often excuse it entirely or praise it.

But I am not trying to argue this from that strict of a dichotomy. The example I picked (slavery) is merely more black and white than say lying is. I am not arguing from Judeo-Christian moral philosophy, I will let Rhy and PVC do that. I am starting from my own axioms based mainly off of empathy, not God. I would still point to Washington as an admirable person within a certain sphere of subjects. I don't think we should even be thinking of who is most admirable or excellent overall as a person, because such general comparisons are always dumb when the broad strokes don't help anymore (AKA when you are not comparing Stalin to Washington).

I would not go "lying is wrong" because I am not led to the conclusion that lying will always be wrong, I am not Kant (I think he was the one who said lying is always wrong). But I am led to the conclusion that slavery is always wrong. So I am making judgement from that.



In your terms, both you and I are better people than Washington simply because we never owned slaves. That's arrogance to me.
Is it arrogant to say I am a better man than a murderer because I have never killed an innocent man?

What I would say as my complete answer Sasaki, is that when it comes to recognizing and empathizing with other human beings of different skin colors, yes we are definitely better people than Washington. When it comes to leading an army? Or a country? Probably not.

Is that really such a mislead way of thinking?
[/QUOTE]

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh no, I'm talking about slavery. It was customary to emancipate after a decade or two of good service, but not contracted or bound by law.

(In fact, if you were a Roman who never freed slaves, you were seen as something of a weirdo. Kinda like, say, a guy who collects thousands of coupons and makes a big deal about it. You were seen as unforgivably stingy and cheap. But there was no law that said you were obliged to free anyone, ever. It was more of a social norm.)

No, this is what you said.


Can't feed your family? Sell yourself into slavery as a tutor, hang out with some rich dude's kids for a decade or so, expect an early emancipation and a new patron at the end.

Selling yourself is a willing action to provide labor from your body in some way under some term of agreement by both sides. The contract may be incredibly harsh for one side, but it is nevertheless a contract between both parties who are both agreeing on it. That is not slavery. That is indentured servitude.

If someone comes to you asking to be your escort for 5 years and you agree and hammer out the terms and conditions, is that slavery?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Slavery, both simple and race-based, was alwasy justifiable, we just use a different measurement standard today, with which slavery is incompatible. People generally seem to prefer this measurement standard at this point in history. We have gradually discovered new ways to rationalize and entrench this standard by connecting it with our own rights. Who is to say what right and wrong regarding ownership of another person will be in 500 years.

[Lemur]

That is not slavery. That is indentured servitude.
Sorry, that's just factually incorrect. Indentured servitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant) was a fixed-term system of debt/obligation and labor; selling yourself into slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) (not uncommon in ancient Rome and the Hellenic city-states) was a permanent change in status (in other words, you made yourself another person's property, until either death or emancipation).

The fact that you might sell yourself voluntarily has no bearing on whether or not it was slavery.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry, that's just factually incorrect. Indentured servitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant) was a fixed-term system of debt/obligation and labor; selling yourself into slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) (not uncommon in ancient Rome and the Hellenic city-states) was a permanent change in status (in other words, you made yourself another person's property, until either death or emancipation).

The fact that you might sell yourself voluntarily has no bearing on whether or not it was slavery.

And what you are describing is indentured servitude. From the wiki links you just posted:
Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indenture).

What you said:
Can't feed your family? Sell yourself into slavery as a tutor, hang out with some rich dude's kids for a decade or so, expect an early emancipation and a new patron at the end.


Slavery is not willing labor, you do not sell yourself into slavery. Someone must force you into slavery. That's how it works. Otherwise all capitalistic labor is a form of slavery (get out of here Commies). In slavery, there is no agreement to work, there is no fixed period of time, there is no choice in the matter to begin with.


EDIT: The very first sentence of the wiki article for slavery you posted:
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) to be bought and sold, and are forced to wor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour)k.

The servants may be treated as property under the Roman system, but they were never forced to work to begin with. They willingly accepted the work.

[Lemur]

a fixed period of time
That's the key bit. In the tutor scenario I described, which was far from uncommon, the would-be tutor sold himself in the hopes that he would be emancipated after a period of good service, but it was unheard-of for such a provision to be put in writing, or agreed-upon at the time of sale.


Slavery is not willing labor, you do not sell yourself into slavery. Someone must force you into slavery. That's how it works.
That it how it often worked, but not the only way. Look, at its heart, slavery means becoming another person's property. Completely. That is what "slave" means, no more, no less. Whether you were taken off a battlefield in Gaul or sold yourself to the highest bidder in Athens, the legal status was the same. Slave.

Equating it with indentured servitude is just incorrect. Sorry. There are similarities, but they are not the same thing. An indentured servant was still a citizen; a slave was not. An indentured servant had a guaranteed time when service would end; a slave did not. An indentured servant could own property, sue and enter into contracts; a slave could not. Killing an indentured servant was generally regarded as murder; killing a slave was bad manners.

There are some similarities, but more differences.

-edit-

Could some kind BR mod split the Abe Lincoln/George Washington/Slavery bit off into a new thread? I fear we have wandered far from the 2012 campaign. Not that I mind, I just have a compulsively neat streak ...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So why excuse him for not letting his slaves go earlier in his life? If he was above the social norms, then there really was no compelling reason for him to keep slaves other than being a bad person in that aspect of his life.

Ohh, I see where we disagree now. See below.




That's my point exactly! The circumstances of their life don't excuse them! I made that statement to highlight the error in trying to incorporate the social constraints of the time in our judgement.

Circumstances don't excuse everything, that doesn't mean they can't excuse some things (if we must talk in terms of excuses).



Maybe I am dumb, but I am not seeing it. I will reread everything again though.

Nah, forget about it, I don't even remember.



But I am not trying to argue this from that strict of a dichotomy. The example I picked (slavery) is merely more black and white than say lying is. I am not arguing from Judeo-Christian moral philosophy, I will let Rhy and PVC do that. I am starting from my own axioms based mainly off of empathy, not God. I would still point to Washington as an admirable person within a certain sphere of subjects. I don't think we should even be thinking of who is most admirable or excellent overall as a person, because such general comparisons are always dumb when the broad strokes don't help anymore (AKA when you are not comparing Stalin to Washington).


Why empathy? That's where I think you're wrong. I think you'll find that emphasizing compassion and empathy goes straight back to religious roots. Most atheists talk about morals in a way that makes much more sense for religious people, shows how much of a ripple effect there is...


Is it arrogant to say I am a better man than a murderer because I have never killed an innocent man?

What I would say as my complete answer Sasaki, is that when it comes to recognizing and empathizing with other human beings of different skin colors, yes we are definitely better people than Washington. When it comes to leading an army? Or a country? Probably not.

Is that really such a mislead way of thinking?


The question is, why on earth would having tons of empathy (as opposed to above average empathy) for black people be mentioned in the same paragraph with founding and leading a country in the way that Washington did? He was an amateur soldier made supreme commander and didn't lose...he could possibly have taken an autocratic attitude but carefully limited himself. Compare him to Napoleon. If hypothetically Napoleon had ended slavery (ignore that he actually re-instated it...) would you put him over Washington, or even near Washington? Also it's quite possible that if he had freed his slaves early he would never have done the things he did. Same for Nixon and his anti-gay comments--they are only worth mentioning if in your mind they work as a kind of "trump card" where even a 2 beats out a king. I think there's a particular mental process for that kind of judgment, linked to our mental process regarding "clean/unclean". One drop of something nasty is enough to get you to wash your hands, one drop of something seen as a "moral taint" is enough to stain the entire person. But really that borders on superstition.

By the way, what do you think of "feminist history" where they go back and make a big fuss about various philosophers and their misogynist views?

[Lemur]

The very first sentence of the wiki article for slavery you posted:
[B]Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) to be bought and sold, and are forced to wor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour)k.
Two thoughts:


Wikipedia is concise and useful, but not definitive. I linked to it not to prove a point but to provide background.
If "forced to work" is a necessary condition for slavery, how do we classify documented cases of harem slaves who were never used by their owners? By your definition, they were not slaves, because they never did their work. By my definition they are (correctly) classified as slaves; by yours they are not.


Nah, I think my definition is both shorter and more accurate: slavery is becoming someone else's property. Period. Work (willing or otherwise), how you arrived in the condition, all of that was irrelevant to your ultimate status. Slave was slave, free was free.

-edit-

This debate has my inner history nerd all hot and bothered. Time to read about the three Servile Wars again, or maybe dust off my Sallust.


I think you'll find that emphasizing compassion and empathy goes straight back to religious roots.
That makes no sense on any level. We are social creatures; groups that cooperate are more likely to prosper than groups that do not. So just from a utilitarian point of view, it's easy to see that empathy is a necessary trait for us. (There's a reason that we find sociopaths, who can feel no empathy, creepy and fascinating.)

I value religion, but to say that an emphasis on compassion and empathy must lead back to religion is unsupportable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's the key bit. In the tutor scenario I described, which was far from uncommon, the would-be tutor sold himself in the hopes that he would be emancipated after a period of good service, but it was unheard-of for such a provision to be put in writing, or agreed-upon at the time of sale.
The would be tutor still willingly accepted the compact. He did not put in writing the terms and conditions because that was not "kosher" at the time, but he nevertheless was the one saying "I will work for you in return for food and shelter." Not forced. Not slavery. That's not my personal definition, that's the definition from the wiki article (great authority, I know).



Look, at its heart, slavery means becoming another person's property. Completely. That is what "slave" means, no more, no less. Whether you were taken off a battlefield in Gaul or sold yourself to the highest bidder in Athens, the legal status was the same. Slave.
No, this is too simplistic of a definition for slavery. Under this definition, we are all someones slaves because while we are under their employment, the boss/company owns our body. But we are not slaves to our corporate bosses, because our labor is not forced. We may have to change our lifestyle and no longer control what we do to ourselves (ex: random drug tests force you to stop smoking pot in your free time), but we signed up for it willingly. That means we are not slaves. Even if we sign a contract where we are not allowed to leave on such a short notice, we are not slaves. Are police and firefighters slaves because it is illegal to strike and leave the job while on the clock?



Equating it with indentured servitude is just incorrect. Sorry. There are similarities, but they are not the same thing. An indentured servant was still a citizen; a slave was not. An indentured servant had a guaranteed time when service ends; a slave did not. An indentured servant could own property, sue and enter into contracts; a slave could not.
The classification of servitude does not depend on their standing within society, it depends on the conditions of the labor agreement. AKA Did both parties agree or not?


I'm sorry. But your definition is wrong and is not matching up with the articles you yourself provided.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, making this thread/post to make my replies in and for mods to dump earlier replies in.


Circumstances don't excuse everything, that doesn't mean they can't excuse some things (if we must talk in terms of excuses).
What would be some examples?



Why empathy? That's where I think you're wrong. I think you'll find that emphasizing compassion and empathy goes straight back to religious roots. Most atheists talk about morals in a way that makes much more sense for religious people, shows how much of a ripple effect there is...
Well...what do you base your moral axioms off of?



The question is, why on earth would having tons of empathy (as opposed to above average empathy)
>:[ Owning slaves is not above average empathy, even if he gave them cold drinks and kept the families together.



for black people be mentioned in the same paragraph with founding and leading a country in the way that Washington did? He was an amateur soldier made supreme commander and didn't lose...he could possibly have taken an autocratic attitude but carefully limited himself. Compare him to Napoleon. If hypothetically Napoleon had ended slavery (ignore that he actually re-instated it...) would you put him over Washington, or even near Washington? Also it's quite possible that if he had freed his slaves early he would never have done the things he did. Same for Nixon and his anti-gay comments--they are only worth mentioning if in your mind they work as a kind of "trump card" where even a 2 beats out a king. I think there's a particular mental process for that kind of judgment, linked to our mental process regarding "clean/unclean". One drop of something nasty is enough to get you to wash your hands, one drop of something seen as a "moral taint" is enough to stain the entire person. But really that borders on superstition.

You must have missed where I said earlier that I completely reject comparing two different people on a general "overall" basis. If we are to compare two people, compare them only on a specific subject or aspect of their lives. it is silly to try and weigh different vices and make an argument about whether or not Washington is worse for his slave owning than Napoleon for his empire building or Nixon for his anti-gay comments. I don't deal with any of that in first place so it's a non issue for me.



By the way, what do you think of "feminist history" where they go back and make a big fuss about various philosophers and their misogynist views?
Well, if the thoughts were truly misogynistic, then there is something to be said about that. If it is unrelated to their field of philosophy, then it shouldn't alter our view of their ideas just as Washington's view of slavery says nothing about his character as Commander in Chief. If they are making a big fuss out of nothing or are assigning an interpretation that the philosopher obviously never intended, then it is just silly and not worth paying attention to.


Two thoughts:
Wikipedia is concise and useful, but not definitive. I linked to it not to prove a point but to provide background.
If "forced to work" is a necessary condition for slavery, how do we classify documented cases of harem slaves who were never used by their owners? By your definition, they were not slaves, because they never did their work. By my definition they are (correctly) classified as slaves; by yours they are not.
Nah, I think my definition is both shorter and more accurate: slavery is becoming someone else's property. Period. Work (willing or otherwise), how you arrived in the condition, all of that was irrelevant to your ultimate status. Slave was slave, free was free.


You are being silly with your interpretation of "forced to work" in order to try and cast that condition in a bad light. "Forced to work" really means "you have to work whenever told at any moment" not "at some point you were forced to have done some labor". So yes, harem slaves that were never used still were slaves because if they were used at any point, they were forced to oblige against their will.

We are all someone else's property in many situations throughout life. I doubt anyone would ever call themselves a slave at any point though....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That makes no sense on any level. We are social creatures; groups that cooperate are more likely to prosper than groups that do not. So just from a utilitarian point of view, it's easy to see that empathy is a necessary trait for us. (There's a reason that we find sociopaths, who can feel no empathy, creepy and fascinating.)

I value religion, but to say that an emphasis on compassion and empathy must lead back to religion is unsupportable.

Yes, groups that bond together. Universal compassion as a central virtue is much more a feature of certain religions. Having slaves as you mentioned has a very long history and is perfectly natural evolutionarily.

The fact that empathy is a necessary trait and so basic is why it's not always emphasized or made out as the most important...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What would be some examples?

The other stuff we've talked about?



Well...what do you base your moral axioms off of?

What moral axioms?



>:[ Owning slaves is not above average empathy, even if he gave them cold drinks and kept the families together.

Sure it is since the others didn't do that.


You must have missed where I said earlier that I completely reject comparing two different people on a general "overall" basis. If we are to compare two people, compare them only on a specific subject or aspect of their lives. it is silly to try and weigh different vices and make an argument about whether or not Washington is worse for his slave owning than Napoleon for his empire building or Nixon for his anti-gay comments. I don't deal with any of that in first place so it's a non issue for me.

Why on earth not? How do you decide who to vote for or who to have a relationship with? We always deal with people as a whole.You would be schizophrenic in your daily life if you tried to do this.

Listen...you said you were disgusted with Washington. That's an overall judgement. What's your justification for being disgusted overall? And why are you disgusted with his individual choice to keep slaves? What's disgusting about it given the context? Like I said, you are using the superstitious part of your brain. Some people have to wash their hands every time they touch something dirty, you have to be disgusted by someone any time they are tainted by connection to something "immoral".


Well, if the thoughts were truly misogynistic, then there is something to be said about that.

What?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The other stuff we've talked about?
What, the lying example? The one where I said I don't consider lying to be inherently wrong in the first place?



What moral axioms?
What basic premises do you use to create a system of "right" and "wrong" from which you can make judgements on actions? Why is this action by so and so bad or good ultimately comes from our personal moral premises that we hold to be truth. You criticized my use of empathy to construct said truths, that I make my judgements on. I am asking you where yours comes from.





Sure it is since the others didn't do that.
So? You make it seem like anybody who didn't whip their slaves until their backs became giant scars are paragons of humanity.



Why on earth not? How do you decide who to vote for or who to have a relationship with? We always deal with people as a whole.You would be schizophrenic in your daily life if you tried to do this.
But this is different from what I am talking about. I don't compare two people about two different things. I am not going to compare Washington's slave owning with Napoleon's tyrannical domestic policy. When I am deciding between two candidates I am comparing the two on the same things. Foreign policy, domestic policy etc...

There is a difference between picking someone for a specific role/job and making a blanket comparison like "Who was most evilest dictator?!?"



Listen...you said you were disgusted with Washington. That's an overall judgement. What's your justification for being disgusted overall? And why are you disgusted with his individual choice to keep slaves? What's disgusting about it given the context? Like I said, you are using the superstitious part of your brain. Some people have to wash their hands every time they touch something dirty, you have to be disgusted by someone any time they are tainted by connection to something "immoral".
No, I believe I said I was disgusted with him about that specific aspect of his life. I distinctly remember saying my overall impression of him as a man is mediocre to good. I can have an overall judgement of a person, I just don't take that overall judgement and make silly comparisons with it.

How is me saying, "I really don't like that he enslaved people." a superstitious thought? Like what?


I gotta explain what I mean about these overall comparisons better. When you say "their quality as a person, their overall excellence" what do you even mean? What is a quality of a person or overall excellence? It's vague generic notions that are not talking about specific roles or jobs. When you present a question of "Which president exhibited the most overall excellence?" It's absolutely garbage. Because there were presidents good at their job and terrible in their public life and vice versa. You are trying to make comparisons of completely different aspects grouped together which ultimately creates an answer that makes no sense. When you ask the question, "Which presidential candidate will you vote for?" That provides common ground for comparisons because you are talking about a specific job/role. You can say, well I like candidate X because he is stronger in most aspects of what this job entails him to make decisions about than candidate Y. There you can make a solid comparison.

End of the day: I look at Washington's individual aspects of his life. There are bad (slavery) and good (leadership) aspects of his life. You ask me what my general view of him is, I will say: pretty good. You ask me if I am better than him, I will say: On what specific issue? You ask me if his quality as a person is better than someone elses, I will say: On some specific aspects sure, on others no. I am not going to say Washington >>>>> Other person Because he led this country to independence and was a great man overall in my eyes. Does this make sense?



What?
What? If the criticisms are valid, they are valid. If they are not, ignore the silly "feminist history". If they are trying to declare a philosopher's work as invalid because he was sexist then that is silly provided that his work is not related to notions about social structure.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What basic premises do you use to create a system of "right" and "wrong" from which you can make judgements on actions? Why is this action by so and so bad or good ultimately comes from our personal moral premises that we hold to be truth. You criticized my use of empathy to construct said truths, that I make my judgements on. I am asking you where yours comes from.

Why would you want a system of right and wrong? Why would you start with something an then construct? It's an inherently bad idea.



But this is different from what I am talking about. I don't compare two people about two different things. I am not going to compare Washington's slave owning with Napoleon's tyrannical domestic policy. When I am deciding between two candidates I am comparing the two on the same things. Foreign policy, domestic policy etc...

There is a difference between picking someone for a specific role/job and making a blanket comparison like "Who was most evilest dictator?!?"


No, I believe I said I was disgusted with him about that specific aspect of his life. I distinctly remember saying my overall impression of him as a man is mediocre to good. I can have an overall judgement of a person, I just don't take that overall judgement and make silly comparisons with it.

How is me saying, "I really don't like that he enslaved people." a superstitious thought? Like what?


I gotta explain what I mean about these overall comparisons better. When you say "their quality as a person, their overall excellence" what do you even mean? What is a quality of a person or overall excellence? It's vague generic notions that are not talking about specific roles or jobs. When you present a question of "Which president exhibited the most overall excellence?" It's absolutely garbage. Because there were presidents good at their job and terrible in their public life and vice versa. You are trying to make comparisons of completely different aspects grouped together which ultimately creates an answer that makes no sense. When you ask the question, "Which presidential candidate will you vote for?" That provides common ground for comparisons because you are talking about a specific job/role. You can say, well I like candidate X because he is stronger in most aspects of what this job entails him to make decisions about than candidate Y. There you can make a solid comparison.

End of the day: I look at Washington's individual aspects of his life. There are bad (slavery) and good (leadership) aspects of his life. You ask me what my general view of him is, I will say: pretty good. You ask me if I am better than him, I will say: On what specific issue? You ask me if his quality as a person is better than someone elses, I will say: On some specific aspects sure, on others no. I am not going to say Washington >>>>> Other person Because he led this country to independence and was a great man overall in my eyes. Does this make sense?

I don't think you can feel disgust about someone in a specific area and not have it color your whole view of them. You would at best dispassionately admit to some merit. If you are critiquing someone on specific issues, that's what should be dispassionate about, while your whole view should have the emotional tint.

Anyway, why are you disgusted with him for owning slaves? That's the second issue. We got off track from our main talk by going into the secondary issue above. I admit I don't find it comprehensible. "People shouldn't own slaves" makes perfect sense, but where does the harsh emotional reaction come from? You said yourself that you have extra disgust for him because of the ideals of the movement he was a part of. So you would say that a different reaction is appropriate based on the context of the time. So I'm not sure we are really arguing about whether we can judge based on context or not so much as you thinking the context of Washington's life is a reason to condemn him.

I can't imagine having waves of disgust for practically every human being that's ever lived.


You ask me if I am better than him, I will say: On what specific issue?

You should say "no".


What? If the criticisms are valid, they are valid. If they are not, ignore the silly "feminist history". If they are trying to declare a philosopher's work as invalid because he was sexist then that is silly provided that his work is not related to notions about social structure.

Don't you think there's something inherently silly in picking out philosophers from 100's of years ago and bothering about whether they were misogynist? A valid criticism in one sense is something that's factually correct, but you still have to justify making it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Why shouldn't people own slaves?" is probably the better question. I don't think that people should own slaves, buy why do you all think that? My feelings on the issue come from a modern understanding (not held by pre-modern people), rightly or wrongly, that human beings have the same inherent value as other human beings and slavery holds back individual human potential to advance the human race, which is more valuable to all of us on the whole, than keeping people in bondage in spite of their talents and potential talents. I would also not like to be a slave myself, and somehow feel that if I am opposed to institutions that allow slavery that this will somehow assuage the interest that others might have in enslaving me on an honor basis. Also, God made all of us "equal" in a mysterious way that contradicts my empirical observation of the animal kingdom and some religious texts. I am satisfied to oppose slavery for all of the reasons mentioned here, plus others, plus the fact that I will be criticized and censured by modern society and the new moral majority opinion if I hold the opposite point of view. Pre-modern individuals would have held different understandings of individual value and made "moral" judgements on a completely different scale. For example, parts of the Bible seem to accept the general idea of slavery, humanity has practiced it for years and people don't seem to be equal in any way to one another in ability or value, so why wouldn't they think it might be ok?

We are all just playing with ideas is my point. No reason to get worked up about something, and no reason not to get worked up about something. Society seems to work reasonably well without slavery, so I guess we made the right decision in abolishing it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would you want a system of right and wrong? Why would you start with something an then construct? It's an inherently bad idea.

If you cannot ascribe to a system of right and wrong, good and bad, ACIN can't debate with you and you cannot make judgements about his posts. In particular, if ACIN says he is "better" than Washington you can't dissagree with him because you lack a criteria of comparison.

I.e., you cannot say whether ACIN or Washinton have done more "good" or "bad" things because you have no "good" or "bad" to measure them by...

...and thus ACIN wins by default.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you cannot ascribe to a system of right and wrong, good and bad, ACIN can't debate with you and you cannot make judgements about his posts. In particular, if ACIN says he is "better" than Washington you can't dissagree with him because you lack a criteria of comparison.

I.e., you cannot say whether ACIN or Washinton have done more "good" or "bad" things because you have no "good" or "bad" to measure them by...

...and thus ACIN wins by default.

Why needs a system in order to make judgements? Do you have a system for telling whether a book or a piece of music is any good? Can you tell?

And more to the point, why act like "right" and "wrong" are some special end stage of judgement? All they are is a clumsy generalization. Do you have a system for deciding whether someone is callous, vacuous, nice, hateful, creepy, etc? We understand those things perfectly well. Attempts to awkwardly squash them into one category or another should be avoided.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Everyone is a victim of the cultural biases of their time.
True.



You (generally speaking, not in reply anyone) can't retro-actively label someone as bad because society's standards have changed.
Why not?



However, it is the duty of an enlightened society to continually seek a more just and fair approach.
How do we do that without judging the past with our inherent biases?



Some day they'll look back on 21st Century America and say a lot of bad things about what's been going on, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
And this means what? Again, this is the kind of "everyone is biased, nobody is wrong, everything is a just a matter of perspective." sillyness that makes me so afraid of joining Sasaki's side.

[a completely inoffensive name]

All it means is that we should be able to objectively see bad things in the past for what they are (something you certainly have no problem doing) but at the same time not villify historical figures for doing what was considered just fine and dandy. Nobody is saying that, for example, George Washington owned slaves therefore I should be able to own slaves--that would be silly.

I think this is common sense. I too am having trouble understanding your objections.

Maybe I am taking crazy pills but I don't understand your logic whatsoever.

A. We can see plainly what bad things have been done by individuals in the past for what they are.
B. But we must not look down upon them because those were some crazy days back then.
C. But obviously we wouldn't do the same things they did, because we know better.

You go from "judge them" to "but don't actually make a judgement" back to "we can make our own life decisions based off this judgement".

This all seems to me to be revealing a bias among everyone regarding historical figures that they want to like and thus try to wiggle their way out of condemning said person while at the same time trying to appear "objective" and "fair" towards the individuals actions.

Sasaki says it's arrogant to claim you are better than Washington. Why? The man owned slaves. I am arrogant for saying that in regards to the treatment of blacks, ACIN v Washington goes to ACIN? No, what it seems to me is that everyone has their idols and when someone wants to make a fair assessment of them by pointing out, "Well hey, he did some really terrible things that none of us would tolerate today." then we gotta whitewash it with some "historical context".

It all seems disgusting to me. Let the future declare me an evil man for my flaws today. If I did terrible things, then I did terrible things and no amount of "social pressures" or whathaveyou changes that fact.

[spankythehippo]

Maybe I am taking crazy pills but I don't understand your logic whatsoever.

A. We can see plainly what bad things have been done by individuals in the past for what they are.
B. But we must not look down upon them because those were some crazy days back then.
C. But obviously we wouldn't do the same things they did, because we know better.

You go from "judge them" to "but don't actually make a judgement" back to "we can make our own life decisions based off this judgement".

This all seems to me to be revealing a bias among everyone regarding historical figures that they want to like and thus try to wiggle their way out of condemning said person while at the same time trying to appear "objective" and "fair" towards the individuals actions.

Sasaki says it's arrogant to claim you are better than Washington. Why? The man owned slaves. I am arrogant for saying that in regards to the treatment of blacks, ACIN v Washington goes to ACIN? No, what it seems to me is that everyone has their idols and when someone wants to make a fair assessment of them by pointing out, "Well hey, he did some really terrible things that none of us would tolerate today." then we gotta whitewash it with some "historical context".

It all seems disgusting to me. Let the future declare me an evil man for my flaws today. If I did terrible things, then I did terrible things and no amount of "social pressures" or whathaveyou changes that fact.

Owning slaves "back in the day" was not something that was out of social norms. To think back now on such events would make the majority of the people feel ashamed. Assessing the achievements of a historical figure in the modern world is biased. People tend to patronise people on the basis of opinions purported in this age.

"Hitler hated fox hunting, so fox hunting is okay!"

That is what, sadly, many people think. They seem to be swayed by certain trivia about an individual. Hitler is different in this case. Genghis Khan slaughtered millions, and yet is kind of idolised. Just for being able to perform such a feat at the time.

So let's compare the facts people say about both these men.

Hitler: Killed lots of guys. He's a "bad guy".
Genghis Khan: Killed lots of guys. Now, that's kinda "cool".

Now for some trivia that people use in defence of the antagonised villian.

Hitler: Was a vegetarian (which is false to an extent, but this is still considered trivia to some). "See? Even Hitler had a sensitive side."
Genghis Khan: Was a love-machine (well, this isn't really in defence of being antagonised, but it's the first thing I remembered).

And yet, both men are known for their part in exterminating milions. I think that bears more weight than the "bias among everyone regarding historical figures that they want to like and thus try to wiggle their way out of condemning said person while at the same time trying to appear "objective" and "fair" towards the individuals actions." But what you said is true. It's just that those types of bias are pathetic excuses for justifying their actions.

In the case of Washington, the fact he had slaves is purely superficial. What good he did is what he should be remembered for, unless his crimes cannot atone for his positive behaviour. But there is no harm in knowing the bad sides of people, is there?

[gaelic cowboy]

In the case of Washington, the fact he had slaves is purely superficial. What good he did is what he should be remembered for, unless his crimes cannot atone for his positive behaviour. But there is no harm in knowing the bad sides of people, is there?

No there is no harm in acknowledging Washington had some grey in his life at all at all.

To be honest it paints a truer picture of the man and explains better certain motivations better if we can see the man and not the god.

Churchill was a warmongering braggart who spent most his time spending money and blowing his own trumpet, if it hadnt been for the fact that every once in a while a warmonger is right he wouldnt even be remembered today. Effectively he was a poor milliary man and an even worse politician but he did have a deep conviction in the historical project of Empire and it's inherrant rightness.

Effectively that is what Britain needed at that particular moment and it's what saved his reputation for later generations.(at least till now anyway)

[spankythehippo]

No there is no harm in acknowledging Washington had some grey in his life at all at all.

To be honest it paints a truer picture of the man and explains better certain motivations better if we can see the man and not the god.

All humans have their flaws. And yet people worship him.


Churchill was a warmongering braggart who spent most his time spending money and blowing his own trumpet, if it hadnt been for the fact that every once in a while a warmonger is right he wouldnt even be remembered today. Effectively he was a poor milliary man and an even worse politician but he did have a deep conviction in the historical project of Empire and it's inherrant rightness.

Effectively that is what Britain needed at that particular moment and it's what saved his reputation for later generations.(at least till now anyway)

Now for some Churchill trivia!

He often took meetings while in the bath. Maybe that's why he was such a poor strategist, he was distracted by his wrinkly fingers. Hmmm, the plot thickens...

[rvg]

Sasaki says it's arrogant to claim you are better than Washington. Why? The man owned slaves. I am arrogant for saying that in regards to the treatment of blacks, ACIN v Washington goes to ACIN?

Because both you and Washington have acted within the societal norms. Back then it was normal to be a slaveowner, now it's not. By not being a slaveowner today you're not breaking any new ground, you're not going the extra mile for anyone, you're just acting within the norms of the society. And getting into a bout of self-righteousness vs George Washington does not make you a better man.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because both you and Washington have acted within the societal norms. Back then it was normal to be a slaveowner, now it's not. By not being a slaveowner today you're not breaking any new ground, you're not going the extra mile for anyone, you're just acting within the norms of the society. And getting into a bout of self-righteousness vs George Washington does not make you a better man.

Being a slave owner and apparently defender of slavery in both parliment and foreign policy certainly could be said to make Washinton a worse man than ACIN though.


The question then becomes does this limit Washington as an American hero, to my mind the answer is no IF we accept he was a man and not a founding god. If the state is evolving onward over time to a better place then Washington is merely a hero of his time(flawed but still a hero nonetheless)

However if as many like to believe the state was purest at it's founding then many of Washingtons actions are a problem only solved by revision or closing ones eyes.


I see no contradiction in the idea that Washington can still be an American hero despite what we now know of him, basically he gets the nod from me because by all accounts he eventually came to see slavery for what it was.

[rvg]

Being a slave owner and apparently defender of slavery in both parliment and foreign policy certainly could be said to make Washinton a worse man than ACIN though.

You're talking about the man who signed the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery anywhere it could. It laid the groundwork for keeping slavery in check. Washington couldn't ban slavery everywhere as it would tear the country apart (as it eventually did anyway), but he did his part in limiting slavery.

[gaelic cowboy]

You're talking about the man who signed the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery anywhere it could. It laid the groundwork for keeping slavery in check. Washington couldn't ban slavery everywhere as it would tear the country apart (as it eventually did anyway), but he did his part in limiting slavery.

And yet he helped France try to put down it's own slave rebellion, does this mean Washignton is like Dr Evil or a dealer in realpolitik effectively a flawed hero who eventually saw the light.

As I said in my earlier post his view on slavery evolved over time which is why he should be remembered in a good light, and definately better than many of his founding contemporaries.

[gaelic cowboy]

Exactly. Nothing is black and white. You have to judge people in context. I don't understand at all why this is difficult to understand for some people.

Nothing is black and white means you would have to reject the view of Washintonian perfection and allow that ACIN has every right then to hold a more nuanced view of Washington the man.

I frankly find it amazing people feel threatened by admitting Washington might have made mistakes, which he seems himself to apparently have regreted in later life anyway.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This all seems to me to be revealing a bias among everyone regarding historical figures that they want to like and thus try to wiggle their way out of condemning said person while at the same time trying to appear "objective" and "fair" towards the individuals actions.

This really isn't true acin. People aren't working backwards to justify the figures they do like. They like them in the first place because they held up under scrutiny (in a way that Jefferson doesn't, even though he's just as much a "mythical hero").

There are many things that no one would defend someone today for doing, it's just that having slaves isn't one of them for most people. Like I said your objection isn't truly to the theory it's to people feeling differently about owning slaves.


Nothing is black and white means you would have to reject the view of Washintonian perfection and allow that ACIN has every right then to hold a more nuanced view of Washington the man.

I don't know why you two imagine that people are desperately trying to hold on to an image of perfection and that your view is the nuanced one :shrug:

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't know why you two imagine that people are desperately trying to hold on to an image of perfection and that your view is the nuanced one :shrug:

So no one ever has attempted to whitewash his character for the public consumption and also nobody has ever attempted to hold his legacy up like some voodoo doll in the political arena.


I see no problem in liking Washington despite his flaws :shrug: as I said 2 or 3 times now he deserves his place as a great man, and he seems to have rejected slavery in his later life.

This is all good and reflects well on his legacy and his achievements.

[Strike For The South]

If you impose your own morals upon history you will never understand history

Go back to your physics book, knave

[gaelic cowboy]

If you impose your own morals upon history you will never understand history

Go back to your physics book, knave

If you ignore the reality of the man are you not making a judgement yourself Strike?? if it be moral one or not would be beside the point.

And naturally I never said I wish to impose my moral order on anyone instead I merely reject the myth, I dont see that this would prevent would me from understanding history.

In fact part of the problem seems to be that by rejecting the myth people are attacked as imposing a moral order on history.

[rvg]

I merely reject the myth.

What myth?

[gaelic cowboy]

What myth?

All of our history RVG especially any history to do with the founding of whatever country you care to mention.

National myths are generally the most cherished and also the most misunderstood.

[rvg]

All of our history RVG especially any history to do with the founding history of whatever country you care to mention.

Can you be more specific? There's nothing wrong with investigating history and finding blemishes, but inventing blemishes where they do not exist is a different story.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't believe that what is right or wrong changes with time, and I think that slavery is wrong.

I wouldn't defend Washington etc on the grounds that they were just doing what was normal for the time. That in and of itself wouldn't excuse them.

However, I think they probably had a lot of misconceptions that in their mind justified slavery, that were just taken for granted at the time. I guess the racial element would have been a big part of that. Combine that with the fact that I'm guessing they never really had any contact with their slaves, and you can maybe excuse their ignorance.

Certainly, I think it would be down more to ignorance than anything more malicious.

Then again I could be wrong, maybe they were aware that black people were perfectly functioning human beings and deserved the same rights as anyone else.

Maybe the were just racists of the nasty sort. Maybe they had concerns about the Southern economy and were putting realism before idealism. I don't know much about American history tbh.

[gaelic cowboy]

Can you be more specific? There's nothing wrong with investigating history and finding blemishes, but inventing blemishes where they do not exist is a different story.

Why would I need to trawl for specific references to a generic statement sure there must be tens of thousands of national myths that need revision.

What would be the point we would merely be here all night then, lets just leave at the idea that people dont get free passes at what they do.


Was anyone saying Washington was perfect? I certainly wasn't.

No one did at least not me or you but I think people sometimes feel if you say his use of slavery was wrong then your somehow making a moral judgement about all his works.

[rvg]

Why would I need to trawl for specific references to a generic statement sure there must be tens of thousands of national myths that need revision.

We were talking specifically about George Washington though, did we not?

[gaelic cowboy]

We were talking specifically about George Washington though, did we not?

Earlier yes I was but I was actually replying to Strike there when you asked for references.

Apparently you cannot understand history if you make a moral judgement.

I say that going around ignoring Washigtons morals removes one of the biggest reasons to study the man.

[rvg]

Earlier yes I was but I was actually replying to Strike there when you asked for references.

Apparently you cannot understand history if you make a moral judgement, I would reply as long as you dont try to impose a particular order or moral on the facts I see no problem in revision.

Okay, let's start with that Abraham fellow. He's such a dick for agreeing to sacrifice his son to God upon God's instructions.

[gaelic cowboy]

Okay, let's start with that Abraham fellow. He's such a dick for agreeing to sacrifice his son to God upon God's instructions.

Indeed it was

[gaelic cowboy]

George Washington should be remembered for the things he actually had control over, and on those things he did quite well.

I thought I said something simmilar to that about 4 or 5 times now.

[Strike For The South]

If you ignore the reality of the man are you not making a judgement yourself Strike?? if it be moral one or not would be beside the point.

And naturally I never said I wish to impose my moral order on anyone instead I merely reject the myth, I dont see that this would prevent would me from understanding history.

In fact part of the problem seems to be that by rejecting the myth people are attacked as imposing a moral order on history.

I know full well the realities of the man, I just don't make a judgement on them (to the best of my ability)

The only man above reproach is Teddy Roosevelt

[Strike For The South]

Okay, let's start with that Abraham fellow. He's such a dick for agreeing to sacrifice his son to God upon God's instructions.

Allegory, it's an allegory

[Strike For The South]

It was a joke brah

[drone]

The only man above reproach is Teddy Roosevelt


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK8gytvGf_Y

:tongue:

[Ironside]

Okay, let's start with that Abraham fellow. He's such a dick for agreeing to sacrifice his son to God upon God's instructions.

Moses demands worse war crimes (in the name of God) than his generals makes.
Noah condemns one of his son and all his decendants to become slaves because that son mocked Noah for Noah getting drunk and sleeping naked.

The Old Testament is full of people that were worse than thier contemporary people. So they fail on both viewpoints.

But to give another example. Due to logistical reasons, pretty much all types of warfare was doing war crimes in the past (they had to live of the land locally). Does that mean that we gain anything by calling all commanders war criminals and than continue to say that him and him was less or worse of a war criminal because what they did?
Doesn't that diminish the war criminals of today?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Like I said your objection isn't truly to the theory it's to people feeling differently about owning slaves.
Maybe. Idk. Still very skeptical. I'm afraid that looking kindly on no-so-great decisions because of the context of the time let's people do mental hopscotch and make revisionist history. I'm not trying to talk about how we should understand history, I am trying to talk about how we should learn from history. It is important to understand what the situation was at the time and why they made the decisions they did. But that should not alter our view of their faults imo.




I don't know why you two imagine that people are desperately trying to hold on to an image of perfection and that your view is the nuanced one :shrug:
Because to me, I see a bunch of people that are more than willing to apply "historical context" to slave owning Founding Fathers, but no one seems to apply the same process to their positive attributes due to the risk of diminishing what we hold as demi-god like.

Hence why American culture seems to have fully characterized all the Founding Fathers as one homogeneous entity that fought for freedom because they all agreed that we were under tyranny. What happened to applying historical context there? A lot of Founding Father's were only pushed into the war as a measure of last resort due to the rejection of the Olive Branch Petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maybe. Idk. Still very skeptical. I'm afraid that looking kindly on no-so-great decisions because of the context of the time let's people do mental hopscotch and make revisionist history. I'm not trying to talk about how we should understand history, I am trying to talk about how we should learn from history. It is important to understand what the situation was at the time and why they made the decisions they did. But that should not alter our view of their faults imo.

Because to me, I see a bunch of people that are more than willing to apply "historical context" to slave owning Founding Fathers, but no one seems to apply the same process to their positive attributes due to the risk of diminishing what we hold as demi-god like.

Hence why American culture seems to have fully characterized all the Founding Fathers as one homogeneous entity that fought for freedom because they all agreed that we were under tyranny. What happened to applying historical context there? A lot of Founding Father's were only pushed into the war as a measure of last resort due to the rejection of the Olive Branch Petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition).

How have we really characterized the founders? I don't think we have in a consistent way. And certainly the people who actually know the history don't characterize them as a homogeneous entity. Don't put too much effort into attacking the middle school social studies curriculum.

The cynical "they were just in it for the money" school is quite old btw.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How have we really characterized the founders? I don't think we have in a consistent way.
To me it seems that for the most part, American society holds the Founding Fathers as the wisest men who ever lived. You would be stressed to find a politician who did not invoke them in a speech regarding the policies they are trying to push. People at the very least accept them as an appeal to authority. Which is bad, considering they made quite a few mistakes.



And certainly the people who actually know the history don't characterize them as a homogeneous entity. Don't put too much effort into attacking the middle school social studies curriculum.
But are we really talking about how academia should operate? I have been talking to "us", the people of the backroom, the general public. Unless there are some people here who are genuine historical academia. The middle/high school curriculum is utter garbage, but it seems as if that is as far as most people go with history with the exception of picking up the occasional biography or learning from an HBO miniseries.



The cynical "they were just in it for the money" school is quite old btw.
Now that is not what I was saying at all. I was merely pointing out that when it comes to "fighting for freedom, rah, rah, rah". There were some full blown Mel Gibson types among the Founding Fathers, but many just wanted the king to be sympathetic and were pushed into fighting against a country they still identified with. This is often lost in the public dialogue though.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

To me it seems that for the most part, American society holds the Founding Fathers as the wisest men who ever lived. You would be stressed to find a politician who did not invoke them in a speech regarding the policies they are trying to push. People at the very least accept them as an appeal to authority. Which is bad, considering they made quite a few mistakes.

I don't think it's that pervasive. Political rhetoric is just rhetoric. People enjoy myths even when they don't take them seriously.



But are we really talking about how academia should operate? I have been talking to "us", the people of the backroom, the general public. Unless there are some people here who are genuine historical academia. The middle/high school curriculum is utter garbage, but it seems as if that is as far as most people go with history with the exception of picking up the occasional biography or learning from an HBO miniseries.

Well, none of the US history books I've read have taken that tone...I'm pretty good at avoiding bad books...I mean, if people do think all the founders were great is likely that they've never read a good history book on the subject. So there's nothing complicated we have to do to avoid bias. I think though, that most people who read a lot of the history come out with a very positive view of Washington. Jefferson gets a lot more flack for a number of things.



Now that is not what I was saying at all. I was merely pointing out that when it comes to "fighting for freedom, rah, rah, rah". There were some full blown Mel Gibson types among the Founding Fathers, but many just wanted the king to be sympathetic and were pushed into fighting against a country they still identified with. This is often lost in the public dialogue though.

I mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

published 1913.

In general american history goes from overly positive during middle school/high school, to overly negative in college.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Kind of off-topic, but the simplified version of history people get in school is one of the main reasons so many Americans grow up to be ignorant adults.

I don't think so really. If they grow up to be ignorant adults is because they didn't read history on their own. There's only so much you can do in class, especially since you have politically loaded topics. Sometimes I'm not sure what the point of those broad history classes in high school is. Maybe they should just do 1st year, british history around the time of the glorious revolution, 1 year american colonization and revolutionary war, 1 year french revolution. Focus more on reading books than relying on high school teachers lecture. I remember very little from the 1 year american history and 1 year european history classes. The M-A-I-N causes of ww1! yeah that's in depth!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Right, but surely there's a way to interest kids in history so that they'll feel inclined to ask questions and even read books on their own? I didn't care about History in school because I was tired of hearing about how steel plows were invented in the 1800s and all that boring hogwosh. When I went out and started reading history on my own, I was very surprised to discover that the 1800s were, in fact, a very interesting century.

How do you convince people that history is worth learning? For me it was historical video games like Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron.

I got into history from a) reading some really engrossing books (and there are plenty out there) and b) from getting into modern politics and debate and seeing how often people made arguments based on history and wanting to prove them wrong/make my own arguments. The second is hard to include in the classroom since people are touchy about it and high school teachers are not that trustworthy. But the first is absolutely the answer I think. History class should be like english literature class except you read history books instead of fiction. Like Berlin Diary, Homage to Catalonia, storm of steel, survival in auswitch. for ww1/ww2 period. Heck, fiction books written back in the day are good too. They ought to pair up english class and history class and go in tandem. We did a bit of that in my high school and I think I learned more history from the fiction books than I did in history class.

But all we ever hear in the education debate is "get better teachers via government top down control! No, get better teachers using the free market!".

[Noncommunist]

To me it seems that for the most part, American society holds the Founding Fathers as the wisest men who ever lived. You would be stressed to find a politician who did not invoke them in a speech regarding the policies they are trying to push. People at the very least accept them as an appeal to authority. Which is bad, considering they made quite a few mistakes.

While there were some mistakes, the fact that they were able to establish a government that didn't work, and then peacefully remake a government that has functioned ever since seems pretty incredible. After all, how many other nations have been able to keep a continuous government for the past 236 years with a mere 26 amendments to their constitution?




Because to me, I see a bunch of people that are more than willing to apply "historical context" to slave owning Founding Fathers, but no one seems to apply the same process to their positive attributes due to the risk of diminishing what we hold as demi-god like.

Well, how would you say their context contributed to their ability to write the Articles of Confederation, peacefully abolish it, then write the current constitution? How many other cases have such peaceful trial and error situations occurred?

[gaelic cowboy]

Well, how would you say their context contributed to their ability to write the Articles of Confederation, peacefully abolish it, then write the current constitution? How many other cases have such peaceful trial and error situations occurred?

What about the American Civil War? seems pretty violent to me

[Noncommunist]

What about the American Civil War? seems pretty violent to me

But the government of the US itself wasn't close to being destroyed. Even if the south had won, the continuity of the US would have remained as the south was merely trying to separate rather than supplant the government.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why needs a system in order to make judgements? Do you have a system for telling whether a book or a piece of music is any good? Can you tell?

And more to the point, why act like "right" and "wrong" are some special end stage of judgement? All they are is a clumsy generalization. Do you have a system for deciding whether someone is callous, vacuous, nice, hateful, creepy, etc? We understand those things perfectly well. Attempts to awkwardly squash them into one category or another should be avoided.

A system OF Right and Wrong is a completely different thing to method for differentiating between them. If something is "right" it is right at any given time and in any given place. If what is "right" is mutable then you are talking about what is "accepted", not what is right.

It is perfectly possible to rank civilisations according to how "Right" you think they are, the trick is working out whether you are Right.


Was anyone saying Washington was perfect? I certainly wasn't.

Traitor, megalomaniac, political and social oppertunist and a mediocre and general and statesman. His main virtues were bull-headedness, the ability to transfer the same to his men and a general lack of material averice.

History judges him favourably because he won, and as a result he is a cult hero in the US. If he had lost he would just be a rebel militia officer piqued over his failure to secure what he most coveted, a regular commission.

[rvg]

Traitor, megalomaniac, political and social oppertunist and a mediocre and general and statesman.

That's quite a lot of epithets. How about some evidence to back them up?

[Strike For The South]

Washington has never gotten my juices flowing like Franklin or Madison

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's quite a lot of epithets. How about some evidence to back them up?

OK.

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General. There's also
no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.

3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.

4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field. As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

None that means he wasn't the man who Beat the British or any kind of villain.

Like I said, perspective.

[rvg]

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer
This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".


2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General.
What's wrong with that?


There's also no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.
Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.


3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.
That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.


4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field.
He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.


As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.
Que?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".
Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

[rvg]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

So your example is weak imo.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?


As for PVC. History is not something you learn because you feel happy inside when you imagine you are deflating other peoples delusions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?

Great way to misinterpret what I am saying Sasaki. Love it when people put terrible racial slurs in my mouth.

Where's Vuk? I think I finally have something we can bond over.

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

[rvg]

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

Oh yeah, the were merely Untermenschen. How dare they yearn for equality...

[Greyblades]

Well, it's gratifying knowing I'm not the only one who has a habit of reading things that are not there.

[Tellos Athenaios]

rvg: rose tinted glassses?

Re: George Washington look at his track record when he still lead British troops against the American Indians. Not particularly awe inspiring that one.
Re: equality: places such as Manchester paid more in taxes and had if possible even less representation for the ordinary folk. Parliament in those days didn't mean that because you paid taxes you were somehow able to influence an MP. The representatives of then would make the current crop of Congress critters blush.

American Independence was ostensibly about "no taxation without representation" but in the same manner the Dutch ostensibly fought for "religious freedom" in the 16th century. The difference being that American Independence was fought over in a time of newspapers and public sympathy rooting for the Americans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.


What's wrong with that?

Who said "wrong"?


Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.


That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire


He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.

[rvg]

rvg: rose tinted glassses?
Re: George Washington look at his track record when he still lead British troops against the American Indians. Not particularly awe inspiring that one.
What's wrong with it?


Re: equality: places such as Manchester paid more in taxes and had if possible even less representation for the ordinary folk. Parliament in those days didn't mean that because you paid taxes you were somehow able to influence an MP. The representatives of then would make the current crop of Congress critters blush.
Doesn't matter. The point is that the colonists were treated like second class citizens and they didn't like it one bit.


American Independence was ostensibly about "no taxation without representation" but in the same manner the Dutch ostensibly fought for "religious freedom" in the 16th century. The difference being that American Independence was fought over in a time of newspapers and public sympathy rooting for the Americans.
We didn't fight for publicity. Publicity was the result of our struggle, not the cause of it.

[rvg]

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.
The tax policy was the manifestation of British tyranny.


Who said "wrong"?
You certainly implied it. You're obviously viewing it with a negative connotation.


Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.
That's pure speculation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.




That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire

We were so equal that a senior colonial officer ranked on the same level as the regular British NCO. Equality my ass.


You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later.
You are equating the professional troops of what then was the largest colonial empire on the planet with a bunch of colonists? Really?


America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing
Yes, the French were instrumental. Enlisting their help was smart politics.


...and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits...
They were mostly farmers some of whom had served in the military at one point in their lives.

[Noncommunist]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.



You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.

Given that the French lost a ton of good admirals and captains during the French Revolution, the British Navy of 1777 was probably about the same as the British Navy of 1805. It's just that their enemies decreased in skill due to internal issues.

[Greyblades]

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

What duties was it not fulfiling?

[Noncommunist]

What duties was it not fulfiling?

Wasn't giving them adequate representation in parliament as was mentioned before.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

No, you need to look at the similarity, and then ask yourself whether the difference is relevant to the point being made. It's an analogy.

[Strike For The South]

5208

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The tax policy was the manifestation of British tyranny.

OK, that deserves a WTF LOL.

Seriously?

The only "Tyranny" was not letting the rich living in the Colonies vote like the rich in England. Before the Revolution most the of the population couldn't vote, and they still couldn't after the revolution. In fact, I think you'll find the UK was ahead of the US there as well as in matters of slavery.


You certainly implied it. You're obviously viewing it with a negative connotation.

Meh, I just don't think he should be lorded as a secular saint.



That's pure speculation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.

His military record speaks volumes.


We were so equal that a senior colonial officer ranked on the same level as the regular British NCO. Equality my ass.

Are you willfully misinterpreting me? A British Colonist with a regular commission was equal to an Englishman with a regular commission.


You are equating the professional troops of what then was the largest colonial empire on the planet with a bunch of colonists? Really?

Again, you are reading forward. The Greatest Colonial Power at this time was France, not Britain, and the "professional" British Army was forged later in the Iberian Wars. During the Revolutionary War British units were still regularly raised and disbanded. Howe's army would have been built around a core of experienced units and newly raised battalions.


They were mostly farmers some of whom had served in the military at one point in their lives.

During this period Battalions raised in omerset had the same make up. Battalions raised in Liverpool were dock workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_units_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

Note the number of "Volunteer" units.


If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

The Crown fulfilled all its duties to the Colonists, including defending them from Indians and the French. Then they asked the Colonists to pay, the rich ones that is. The Colonial Aristocracy didn't like that, so they rebelled.

[Greyblades]

Wasn't giving them adequate representation in parliament as was mentioned before.

That's not really a duty, more a concession earned by force through several rebellions and treaties between the kings of england and the noblility over multiple centuries, and even then it was only given to those who either were in position of power and influence enough to force the issue, from my understanding parliment was pretty elitist.
I would like to add that I do not think the american colonies shouldnt have been represented, personally I do find myself confused at parliment's reluctance to accept american MP's considering the amount of the british economy they controled.
Though going from "we want american MP's" to "we want independance" was a bit much of an unneccissary leap on congress' part in my opinion considering thier victory in the war could have easily forced parliment into giving them representation.

[rvg]

...Before the Revolution most the of the population couldn't vote, and they still couldn't after the revolution...
After the Revolution every free man was entitled to vote.



In fact, I think you'll find the UK was ahead of the US there as well as in matters of slavery.

True, but not relevant.


Meh, I just don't think he should be lorded as a secular saint.
Of course not, but no reason to badmouth him either.



His military record speaks volumes.
Care to elaborate?


Are you willfully misinterpreting me? A British Colonist with a regular commission was equal to an Englishman with a regular commission.
No, I am willfully contradicting you. One reason why Washington limited his participation in the French and Indian campaigns: he didn't want to do it as a colonial officer, since even the most junior regular officer would outrank him. He found it humiliating and rightfully so.


Again, you are reading forward. The Greatest Colonial Power at this time was France, not Britain
This is arguable, since by 1770 France was completely kicked off the North American continent. Furthermore, be it first colonial superpower or the next one, Britain had a lot more in terms of resources, manpower and deployment ability than the colonists.


and the "professional" British Army was forged later in the Iberian Wars. During the Revolutionary War British units were still regularly raised and disbanded. Howe's army would have been built around a core of experienced units and newly raised battalions.They have plenty of manpower. They refused to properly engage the manpower because they underestimated the rebellion, but that's another story. Sending mercenaries to crush the rebellion was their prerogative but hardly their only option.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

After the Revolution every free man was entitled to vote.

Factually incorrect, only those with property of sufficient value held in their own name could vote, exactly the same as England.


Of course not, but no reason to badmouth him either.

You should hear me on Wellington, a man who shared many of Washington's charactaristics - good and bad.


Care to elaborate?

Injins.


No, I am willfully contradicting you. One reason why Washington limited his participation in the French and Indian campaigns: he didn't want to do it as a colonial officer, since even the most junior regular officer would outrank him. He found it humiliating and rightfully so.

Failure to secure a regular commission on Washington's part appears to have been due to a lack of funds or connections, not being a Colonist. Other Colonists served as regular officers - Consider 105th American Volunteers - a Loyalist unit during the Revolution.


This is arguable, since by 1770 France was completely kicked off the North American continent. Furthermore, be it first colonial superpower or the next one, Britain had a lot more in terms of resources, manpower and deployment ability than the colonists.

They have plenty of manpower. They refused to properly engage the manpower because they underestimated the rebellion, but that's another story. Sending mercenaries to crush the rebellion was their prerogative but hardly their only option.

The French situation is arguable, the manpower and resources one is not. Washington held his army together long enough to bleed the British, not beat them. New York and it's environs remained in British hands until after the war.

[rvg]

Factually incorrect, only those with property of sufficient value held in their own name could vote, exactly the same as England.
It started almost immediately. In New Hampshire for example, all white men could vote as early as 1792.


You should hear me on Wellington, a man who shared many of Washington's charactaristics - good and bad.
I'm not debating your right to badmouth Washington, only the logic behind it.



Injins.
We fought a war. They fought on the side of the enemy. We killed them. I do not see a problem here.


Failure to secure a regular commission on Washington's part appears to have been due to a lack of funds or connections, not being a Colonist. Other Colonists served as regular officers - Consider 105th American Volunteers - a Loyalist unit during the Revolution.
Couldn't be picky once the Revolution began, though it was too late by then.


The French situation is arguable, the manpower and resources one is not. Washington held his army together long enough to bleed the British, not beat them. New York and it's environs remained in British hands until after the war.
As long as the goal was achieved, it's all good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It started almost immediately. In New Hampshire for example, all white men could vote as early as 1792.

But wasn't finished until 1860, and then there's still blacks and women. By contrast, Blacks were never denied the vote in England.


I'm not debating your right to badmouth Washington, only the logic behind it.

The logic is, these men were not exactly nice people.


We fought a war. They fought on the side of the enemy. We killed them. I do not see a problem here.

You took their land, gave them diseases, then burned their remaining villages, man woman and child.


Couldn't be picky once the Revolution began, though it was too late by then.

Not at all, the point is that Washington failed to secure a regular commission but other American Colonists did succeed before and during the revolution. We were talking about megalomania before.

[rvg]

By contrast, Blacks were never denied the vote in England.
Right. You know where else they were never denied the vote? Imperial Russia. It's easy not to deny something to Blacks when you have none or very few of them around.


The logic is, these men were not exactly nice people.
Doesn't make them bad people though.


You took their land, gave them diseases, then burned their remaining villages, man woman and child.
They killed a bunch of us as well. Either way, most of that was done after Washington's death.



Not at all, the point is that Washington failed to secure a regular commission but other American Colonists did succeed before and during the revolution. We were talking about megalomania before.
My point is that a colonial Officer of one rank was not equal to the Regular officer of the same rank.

[Strike For The South]

Someone forgot his lesson on Jacksonion democracy. That fact a limey is whipping a Yankee at his own history is sad

[Greyblades]

Well it's kinda both our histories, as much as our education system may ignore it. bunch of jerks making me study the canal and road expansions grumble, grumble...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right. You know where else they were never denied the vote? Imperial Russia. It's easy not to deny something to Blacks when you have none or very few of them around.

No, we were just a lot less racist. The only time we have ever had any form of racial segregation in the UK was during WWII to prevent fights between White American servicemen and everyone else. Let me spell that out for you:

Black G.I. orders pint in pub, white G.I. tells him to get out, barman throws White G.I. into street.

Not to say we had no racist here, but with very few exceptions all his majesty's common subjects were equal before the law.

Also, listen to Strike if you don't believe me.


Doesn't make them bad people though.

Did I say that? I said Washington was a traitor to his King, I didn't pass judgement on that fact.

As it is, I feel the reaction of the Continental Congress was.... excessive, but King George was having one of his funny turns and his ministers lacked His Majesty's common touch. If George III had been in better health perhaps he would have made a trip to the Colonies to see for himself, and the war would have been avoided.


They killed a bunch of us as well. Either way, most of that was done after Washington's death.

Washington did those things in Virginia before the war, and later during. If he was a model American soldier and statesman he has a lot to answer for. Compare the treatment ofNative Americans in Canada and the US - at least the Candaian authorities had the courtesy to sign intollerable treaties the Natives had to break, rather than break the treaties themselves.


My point is that a colonial Officer of one rank was not equal to the Regular officer of the same rank.

So what? A Yeoman Officer in England wasn't either.

[rvg]

No, we were just a lot less racist. The only time we have ever had any form of racial segregation in the UK was during WWII to prevent fights between White American servicemen and everyone else. Let me spell that out for you:

Black G.I. orders pint in pub, white G.I. tells him to get out, barman throws White G.I. into street.

Not to say we had no racist here, but with very few exceptions all his majesty's common subjects were equal before the law.

Washington. George Washington. 18th century, not 20th.



Also, listen to Strike if you don't believe me.

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.



Did I say that? I said Washington was a traitor to his King, I didn't pass judgement on that fact.

You're certainly portraying it as Washington's character flaw.


As it is, I feel the reaction of the Continental Congress was.... excessive, but King George was having one of his funny turns and his ministers lacked His Majesty's common touch. If George III had been in better health perhaps he would have made a trip to the Colonies to see for himself, and the war would have been avoided.
Either way, what's done is done.


Washington did those things in Virginia before the war, and later during. If he was a model American soldier and statesman he has a lot to answer for.
What he did wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It is kinda ridiculous to hold him up to today's moral standards. Besides, Indians were far from peaceful towards Whites. Mostly because there was about zero level of understanding of one another's culture and viewpoints, but in the end it was a mutual war of extermination. Colonists were simply better at it.


Compare the treatment ofNative Americans in Canada and the US - at least the Candaian authorities had the courtesy to sign intollerable treaties the Natives had to break, rather than break the treaties themselves.
i.e. they weren't any better.



So what? A Yeoman Officer in England wasn't either.
And I salute him for his resolve and loyalty that compel him to bend his back and properly serve his betters. Meanwhile, those New World rascals had other ideas.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, we were just a lot less racist.

:laugh4:

Not taking sides in the Washington debate, but that is patently absurd.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:laugh4:

Not taking sides in the Washington debate, but that is patently absurd.

My family never had slaves - we used them in the colonies but not in the UK. That might be swivel-eyed on the part of the higher-ups, but the result is that the only Africans most British people ever saw were free men, and English and Scottish law reflect the resulting (relative) colour blindness. If you've been following me and Gaelic in another thread you might appreciate that the white Irish Catholic had as many if not more cultural and legal prejudices against him as the black Carribean or American Protestant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Washington. George Washington. 18th century, not 20th.

And 200 years later things hadn't changed much. There have always been Africans mixing with Englishmen in the UK, ever since the 16th Century - in the Navy, in Bristol and London. Why do you think there are such African populations there?


No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

Your loss.


You're certainly portraying it as Washington's character flaw.

That depends on your perspective, on whether you think the regime in the Colonies was actually intollerable, but more importantly it depends what Washington thought.


Either way, what's done is done.

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, those who read it and misunderstand it are simply doomed.

The American Colonists fought a brutal and bloody Civil War (Loyalist forces roughly equalled Patriot forces in the beginning) over the tax regime imposed by London. Now you can't balance the books because of the inability of Washington to agree a serious tax regime over 200 years later.

What happened during the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath is important. I submit that America is still run by the elite who started the rebellion because they refused to pay their taxes, and they still refuse to pay their taxes.


What he did wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It is kinda ridiculous to hold him up to today's moral standards. Besides, Indians were far from peaceful towards Whites. Mostly because there was about zero level of understanding of one another's culture and viewpoints, but in the end it was a mutual war of extermination. Colonists were simply better at it.

Again, reading back - find my a massacre against Native Americans carried out by a British Officer.


i.e. they weren't any better.

A matter of Opinion, you would have to ask Megas - but at least British Canadian officals dealt by legal treaty.


And I salute him for his resolve and loyalty that compel him to bend his back and properly serve his betters. Meanwhile, those New World rascals had other ideas.

The Yeomanry were the English militia, not some sort of slave army. A Yeomanry officer would likely be of the same social class as a regular one, the same social class as Washington himself.

[rvg]

And 200 years later things hadn't changed much. There have always been Africans mixing with Englishmen in the UK, ever since the 16th Century - in the Navy, in Bristol and London. Why do you think there are such African populations there?
This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.


That depends on your perspective, on whether you think the regime in the Colonies was actually intollerable, but more importantly it depends what Washington thought.
Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.



Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, those who read it and misunderstand it are simply doomed.

The American Colonists fought a brutal and bloody Civil War (Loyalist forces roughly equalled Patriot forces in the beginning) over the tax regime imposed by London. Now you can't balance the books because of the inability of Washington to agree a serious tax regime over 200 years later.

What happened during the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath is important. I submit that America is still run by the elite who started the rebellion because they refused to pay their taxes, and they still refuse to pay their taxes.
We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.



Again, reading back - find my a massacre against Native Americans carried out by a British Officer.
How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.


A matter of Opinion, you would have to ask Megas - but at least British Canadian officals dealt by legal treaty.
Exactly, a matter of opinion.


The Yeomanry were the English militia, not some sort of slave army. A Yeomanry officer would likely be of the same social class as a regular one, the same social class as Washington himself.
Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

[gaelic cowboy]

My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

[Strike For The South]

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.


Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.

That depends on what you are judging, and your sources - Washington's personal papers offer you a way to judge his character, but his actions can be judged simply. He had held a Colonial Commission, he would therefore have been required to Swear. He broke his Oath to King and Country and Rebelled against his regally established ruler and Parliament, not to mention his Colony's Governor, though I'll grant you that said Governor had an unfortunate habit of disolving the Assembly.


We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.


How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.


Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.


My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

Failed in Malta too. I think Britain learned to treat colonists properly only after the Falklands War, prior to which Thatcher's government planned to screw them over too. You're absolutely right about the failure to properly integrate the Colonies into British rule, the final Solution was, and is, Commonwealth and self-rule. Although, I expect the original plan was for london to retain some form of overaching control.


Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

Yes, I'll give you that. The cynical prediction that the Americans would establish their own Dukes within twenty years never came to pass and I'm sure the character of the original Founding Fathers is in large part responsible for that.

However, I should like to see evidence that there was a more comprehensive franchise after the Reform Act 1867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

[rvg]

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much. Had to start somewhere.



but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.



You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

You wanted an example and I gave you one.



Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.
Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Had to start somewhere.

Yes, but the point is you didn't get anywhere fast. In 1832 King William IV forced the House of Lords to pass the Great Reform Act and in 1867 the Reform act effectively gave the franchise to all adult males. Meanwhile, even in the 1770's setiment was moving towards increasing autonomy for the the Colonial Dominions, so if the 13 Colonies had not rebelled by 1870ish you'd probably have a situation where they were mostly self governing (remember the Colonies already had democratic assemblies) with a broad franchise. As it was, you didn't achieve anything like universal sufferage until after WWII.


It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

I would submit to you that:

A: The Founding Fathers were explicitely anti-democratic and were concerned not with principles but with economic autonomy. The US Constitution, and particularly the Electoral College, were explicitely designed to prevent the masses from gaining control of the government. Given the current havoc the Tea-Party is reeking on your finances I must say I am sympathetic to the sentiment and objective.

and

B: The Continental Congress was highjacked by Merchant princes who feared future taxes cutting into their profits and by political radicals who wanted to create a new Enlightenment State.


You wanted an example and I gave you one.

It is not the same as a planned massacre of women and Children such as were carried out in the Americas. It was essentially a botched Police Action enacted by a single officer without higher authorisation.


Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

There were injustices in the Americas, particularly in the power of the Colonial Governors which exceeded the analogous powers of the King, but Washington not recieving a Regular Commission, nore his lack of seniority as a Colonial Officer were not among them. Let me state this again, it was the nature of Washington's Commission, not Washington's birth, which dictated his station.

[Greyblades]

You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.
Seriously, this guy just doesnt get pissed no matter how stupid or inflamatory the argument.

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.
An interesting point is that if the americans stayed with britain it wouldnt have become the superpower it is today, by becoming a seperate nation without loyalties to a preexisting power it became the go to place for the entire world's worth of people wanting a new life. If it had stayed it wouldnt have had the huge influx of manpower, culture and radical thinkers and might just be another unimportant american colony in the vein of mexico and brazil.

[rvg]

Yes, but the point is you didn't get anywhere fast. In 1832 King William IV forced the House of Lords to pass the Great Reform Act and in 1867 the Reform act effectively gave the franchise to all adult males.
We were a year behind when the 14th Amendment extended citizenship (and thus voting rights) to all men born in the U.S. regardless of race.


Meanwhile, even in the 1770's setiment was moving towards increasing autonomy for the the Colonial Dominions, so if the 13 Colonies had not rebelled by 1870ish you'd probably have a situation where they were mostly self governing (remember the Colonies already had democratic assemblies) with a broad franchise. As it was, you didn't achieve anything like universal sufferage until after WWII.
Why wait for freedom to be granted to you when you can take it yourself?



The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.
Coudln't wait for respect forever. There was no indication of any sort of understanding coming from London.



I would submit to you that:

A: The Founding Fathers were explicitely anti-democratic and were concerned not with principles but with economic autonomy. The US Constitution, and particularly the Electoral College, were explicitely designed to prevent the masses from gaining control of the government. Given the current havoc the Tea-Party is reeking on your finances I must say I am sympathetic to the sentiment and objective.

and

B: The Continental Congress was highjacked by Merchant princes who feared future taxes cutting into their profits and by political radicals who wanted to create a new Enlightenment State.

You look at who they were and I look at what they did. For starters, they managed to forge and implement the best Constitution the world had ever seen.



It is not the same as a planned massacre of women and Children such as were carried out in the Americas. It was essentially a botched Police Action enacted by a single officer without higher authorisation.
Planned or not, death is death.


There were injustices in the Americas, particularly in the power of the Colonial Governors which exceeded the analogous powers of the King, but Washington not recieving a Regular Commission, nore his lack of seniority as a Colonial Officer were not among them. Let me state this again, it was the nature of Washington's Commission, not Washington's birth, which dictated his station.
Colonial troops fought and bled the same way as the regulars. There was no reason to discriminate against them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We were a year behind when the 14th Amendment extended citizenship (and thus voting rights) to all men born in the U.S. regardless of race.

So the Revolution didn't do much for political equality, especially since legal Apartied continued into the 1960's. In any case, citizenship did not necessarily equate to "voting rights" because the US had applied property qualifications to citizen sufferage in the past. In any case, as I have already said, there was never a racially discrimination between British Subjects in the UK, so that's not something to crow about.


Why wait for freedom to be granted to you when you can take it yourself?

Why fight a brutal Civil War when you can live in peace and negotiate?


Coudln't wait for respect forever. There was no indication of any sort of understanding coming from London.

That is patently not true, as you yourself have admitted the London had already compromised on the tax issue, and Howe was authorised to negotiate, it was the Patriots you declared "give me liberty or give me death."

I agree with the central thesis that Parliament could not tax a territory which did not return MP's, but it follows that Parliament should not really be spending British taxes on expensive wars in the Colonies. Ergo, the Colonies should pay for their own defence - something they were incapable of in the face of the French.


You look at who they were and I look at what they did. For starters, they managed to forge and implement the best Constitution the world had ever seen.

Objectively, this is clearly not true. The original US Constitution is a seriously flawed document from the perspective establishing "Freedom" and you had to have another Civil War to sort it out.

Having said that, the current settlemet in the US, at least until 20 years ago, exemplery. Possibly time for another tune up though.


Planned or not, death is death.

True, but not the point. Particularly if you were to ask Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, who were murdered during Parlay.


Colonial troops fought and bled the same way as the regulars. There was no reason to discriminate against them.

They were not Disciminated against.

I don't know how many different ways to explain this to you.

A British Colonist was a British Subject, the same as a man born in England. Washington could have gone to England, or entered the Navy as a Midshipman the same as a man from Kent or Devon. What he did instead was fought in the Colonial militia - as such he had a Commission from the Colonial Governor, not the King. A Royal Commission takes precidence over EVERYTHING, and that is the end of the argument. Later, Line Regiments with Regular Officers were raised in the Colonies, other American Regiments were added to the Order of Battle, like the 105th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_American_Regiment_(Volunteers_of_Ireland)

If Washington had brought the Virginia Regiment to the Loyalist side he would have recieved a Regular Commission.

[rvg]

So the Revolution didn't do much for political equality, especially since legal Apartied continued into the 1960's. In any case, citizenship did not necessarily equate to "voting rights" because the US had applied property qualifications to citizen sufferage in the past. In any case, as I have already said, there was never a racially discrimination between British Subjects in the UK, so that's not something to crow about.
By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.


Why fight a brutal Civil War when you can live in peace and negotiate?
Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.



That is patently not true, as you yourself have admitted the London had already compromised on the tax issue, and Howe was authorised to negotiate, it was the Patriots you declared "give me liberty or give me death."

Too little, too late.


Objectively, this is clearly not true. The original US Constitution is a seriously flawed document from the perspective establishing "Freedom" and you had to have another Civil War to sort it out.
The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.



True, but not the point. Particularly if you were to ask Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, who were murdered during Parlay.

Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.



If Washington had brought the Virginia Regiment to the Loyalist side he would have recieved a Regular Commission.

By then he didn't want it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.


Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.


Too little, too late.

Apparently so.


The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.


Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

[quote]By then he didn't want it.

Since way of not backing down.

Not the point, is it?

[rvg]

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.
Doesn't matter.




Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.



It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.
And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.



OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.




Not the point, is it?

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?


Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]

British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.


And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.


He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.


Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

To help illustrate that this is not an issue of "Colonialism" or "subservience" - it is merely one of Order of Precidence.

[rvg]

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?
Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.



They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]
British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.



From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

A democracy nonetheless.


That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.
I did no such thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.

The UK has achieved a smiliar settlement, but with fewer wars and less bloodshed. If the UK becomes a Republic then your point will be completely moot. Note it has only remain a monarchy because the people wish it so.


Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.

Errrr

No. If you were we wouldn't have sent eminent Aristocrats out to govern you. America was the heart of the Old Empire, the land of opertunity, the engine of British Commerce. Even the currency used in the UK to this day, pounds sterling, bears witness to this.


A democracy nonetheless.

So are Canada, the UK, and Australia.


I did no such thing.

You said "we", you want to laud your Republic? Take the bitter pills with the sugar then.

[rvg]

The UK has achieved a smiliar settlement, but with fewer wars and less bloodshed. If the UK becomes a Republic then your point will be completely moot. Note it has only remain a monarchy because the people wish it so.

Similar <> the same. And making Britain a republic will not turn it into mini-USA.



No. If you were we wouldn't have sent eminent Aristocrats out to govern you. America was the heart of the Old Empire, the land of opertunity, the engine of British Commerce. Even the currency used in the UK to this day, pounds sterling, bears witness to this.

I believe that "eminent aristocrats" were also sent to govern India. The subcontinent is still rejoicing from the experience.



So are Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Today. Not back then.



You said "we", you want to laud your Republic? Take the bitter pills with the sugar then.

It's not a bitter pill at all. I feel absolutely no guilt about it. I was just stressing that *I* did not do it. Like I said earlier, it was a war of the worlds. Our world happened to prevail. It happened before, back when the Vikings settled in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. At that time *they* became the victims.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still thinking about what to reply to Sasaki, just wanted to chime in and say that I am really, really enjoying this back and forth between RVG and PVC. A lot that has come up so far has only reinforced my notions, but other things are making me skeptical of my overall position.

Thanks to both of you for not wanting to give up the last word.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Similar <> the same. And making Britain a republic will not turn it into mini-USA.

That's true, Britain is better governed, 100% of the country is covered by professional Police and Fire Service.

There are many things about the US which are laudable but the failure to address the defecit and the current farcical election cycle are symptoms of design flaws. The model is not perfect.


I believe that "eminent aristocrats" were also sent to govern India. The subcontinent is still rejoicing from the experience.

See, that's funny, because in India the Middle Class speak English as a first language, they have English habits, fashions and manners. They also play cricket. Then there are the Indian railways...

Before you get the Sepoy Rebellion, it was a farce because the cartridges issued to Sepoys were waxed, not greased, the rumour that cow or pig grease was used was spread by malcontents.

India also follows British Parliamentary practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_India

Don't try to tell me India would have been better off without the Raj - India would not exist without the Raj.

quote]Today. Not back then.[/quote]

If the UK was not a democracy in 1780 then neither was the US.

As I said, there's much or muchness is the timeline of "democratisation".


It's not a bitter pill at all. I feel absolutely no guilt about it. I was just stressing that *I* did not do it. Like I said earlier, it was a war of the worlds. Our world happened to prevail. It happened before, back when the Vikings settled in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. At that time *they* became the victims.

OK, so now you're really stretching it. The Vikings in Vinland starved to death, they weren't systematically wiped out.

[rvg]

That's true, Britain is better governed, 100% of the country is covered by professional Police and Fire Service.
There are many things about the US which are laudable but the failure to address the defecit and the current farcical election cycle are symptoms of design flaws. The model is not perfect.
I didn't say it was perfect, I only said it was the best.



See, that's funny, because in India the Middle Class speak English as a first language, they have English habits, fashions and manners. They also play cricket. Then there are the Indian railways...

And despite all that they still chose freedom.



Before you get the Sepoy Rebellion, it was a farce because the cartridges issued to Sepoys were waxed, not greased, the rumour that cow or pig grease was used was spread by malcontents.

I actually wasn't going to bring that up at all.



Don't try to tell me India would have been better off without the Raj - India would not exist without the Raj.

Oh, it most certainly would have been there. Would it have been better off? Now that is a difficult question.



If the UK was not a democracy in 1780 then neither was the US.

Sure we were. At least once the Constitution was adopted, I think that was in 1787.




OK, so now you're really stretching it. The Vikings in Vinland starved to death, they weren't systematically wiped out.

Perhaps "wiped out" is the wrong term. "Booted out" would be more accurate. Vinland was too remote and thus too difficult to protect from ever increasing Indian raids. So the Vikings packed up and left.

[Strike For The South]

So much wrong.

American treatmeant of the Indians was bad by even the contemporary standards of the day. The fact one general can win one battle and then remove all the Indians east of the Mississippi based on that one success is shocking.

Granted the British had the luxury of not setteling their colonies in large numbers (which, for the purpose of this arguement, was what the newly acquried American lands were).

It's not a cyclical thing either. Unless you count 1492-present cyclical. Europeans wiped out an entire hemisphere worth of culture and the few that do survive today are drunken slobs living on government aid. I mean we won, but it certainly wasn't a fair fight.

True, alls fair in love and war but to say they would've done the same to us is patently false. All indications show the five civilized tribes more than willing to hold up their end of the bargin. The idea that they would've done the same to us is insane and has no basis in fact. Only to assuage modern guilt

I also take issue with being called pond scum. Unlike the majority of you swarthy, east of vienna, Johnny Come Latelys, my family owned land in England and came to the colonies under their own volition. In fact Great Gran Pappy was a doctor who served under General Washington. I'm extremely proud that my fore fathers were men whom belivied in the vaules of the enlightenment (even if for less than prestine reasons) Lumping me in with the rest of the huddled masses like I'm some common Irishman

HARUMPH.

I would like to add some nuance to the whole aparthied republic arguement. Jim crow did not start right after the war. From 1865-1879 federal troops ensured voting rights to blacks at bayonet point. This is when you see the first black congressmen and republican parties in the south. When troops left the voting rights were slowly stripped until a voting black man in the south became a recent memory. So yes, while the 14th amendment beat the reform act to the punch, I humbely submit that when you have to use force to ensure voting rights, it might not count.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't say it was perfect, I only said it was the best.

Something I take issue with on the basis that "best" is a very subjectively weighted. As I said, the UK is arguably still better governed at the County Level and we have one form of electing representatives for every English County, the same for every Welsh and Scottish district and in Northern Ireland. The rule of law extends without interuption from Lands End to John O Groats.


And despite all that they still chose freedom.

No, they chose political independance, they were already getting "freedom". Before you go off on one about that, Consider that it was the opinion of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office that India was not yet ready for full autonomy. Given that the country broke into two, and then broke into two again, has suffred several wars between the various states and continues to have issues with military coups, corruption and now Islamic extremism I would say the Civil Servants might have been right.

Wouldn't you?


Oh, it most certainly would have been there. Would it have been better off? Now that is a difficult question.

The sub-continet would be there, the modern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangledesh would not - most likely is would still be a Balkan-like collection of Principalities where Muslim rulers held sway over the majority Hindu population with no Prince able to unify the whole or forge a confederation that lasted beyond his own life time.

Britain undertook not only the political and legal reforms that created the modern states, it also built the essential infastructure for them to function, including the massive land-reclamation project that created Bombay and the modern Indian Parliament building to name but two.


Sure we were. At least once the Constitution was adopted, I think that was in 1787.

It was still minority franchise just like the UK and Senatores were still chosen not elected, not totally dissimilar to the way one got into the House of Lords.


Perhaps "wiped out" is the wrong term. "Booted out" would be more accurate. Vinland was too remote and thus too difficult to protect from ever increasing Indian raids. So the Vikings packed up and left.

Vinland was never seriously settled. The suggestion that Norsemen could not hold their own against Native Americans, if they chose to, is laughable. The Norse technology was centuries ahead of the Native equivilent.


So much wrong.

American treatmeant of the Indians was bad by even the contemporary standards of the day. The fact one general can win one battle and then remove all the Indians east of the Mississippi based on that one success is shocking.

Granted the British had the luxury of not setteling their colonies in large numbers (which, for the purpose of this arguement, was what the newly acquried American lands were).

It's not a cyclical thing either. Unless you count 1492-present cyclical. Europeans wiped out an entire hemisphere worth of culture and the few that do survive today are drunken slobs living on government aid. I mean we won, but it certainly wasn't a fair fight.

True, alls fair in love and war but to say they would've done the same to us is patently false. All indications show the five civilized tribes more than willing to hold up their end of the bargin. The idea that they would've done the same to us is insane and has no basis in fact. Only to assuage modern guilt

I also take issue with being called pond scum. Unlike the majority of you swarthy, east of vienna, Johnny Come Latelys, my family owned land in England and came to the colonies under their own volition. In fact Great Gran Pappy was a doctor who served under General Washington. I'm extremely proud that my fore fathers were men whom belivied in the vaules of the enlightenment (even if for less than prestine reasons) Lumping me in with the rest of the huddled masses like I'm some common Irishman

HARUMPH.

I would like to add some nuance to the whole aparthied republic arguement. Jim crow did not start right after the war. From 1865-1879 federal troops ensured voting rights to blacks at bayonet point. This is when you see the first black congressmen and republican parties in the south. When troops left the voting rights were slowly stripped until a voting black man in the south became a recent memory. So yes, while the 14th amendment beat the reform act to the punch, I humbely submit that when you have to use force to ensure voting rights, it might not count.

When I was in school is was suggested that part of the issue affecting the relationship between settlers and Natives was the lack of central control or law enforcement. Even today the population density in the Mid West in particular is very low. That implies that is wasn't lack of space which caused the problem, but more the tendancy of settlers to get into conflict with Natives.

In Canada a similar thing did happen but in a markedly less violent way, and legally.

[rvg]

As I said, the UK is arguably still better governed at the County Level and we have one form of electing representatives for every English County, the same for every Welsh and Scottish district and in Northern Ireland. The rule of law extends without interuption from Lands End to John O Groats.Better? Better how?



No, they chose political independance, they were already getting "freedom".
So, they were "free" but didn't know it, so they chose to be free instead.


Before you go off on one about that, Consider that it was the opinion of the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office that India was not yet ready for full autonomy.
And that's the problem. When some "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" is telling me whether or not my people are ready to run their own affairs I can conclusively say that they aren't free.


Given that the country broke into two, and then broke into two again, has suffered several wars between the various states and continues to have issues with military coups, corruption and now Islamic extremism I would say the Civil Servants might have been right.
Wouldn't you?
Hell no. Seriously, the whole idea of the Wise and Benevolent "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" deciding on whether or not I'm mature enough to be free is infuriating.



The sub-continet would be there, the modern countries of India, Pakistan and Bangledesh would not - most likely is would still be a Balkan-like collection of Principalities where Muslim rulers held sway over the majority Hindu population with no Prince able to unify the whole or forge a confederation that lasted beyond his own life time.By the time of the British conquest much of India was already under Hindu Marathan rule.


Britain undertook not only the political and legal reforms that created the modern states, it also built the essential infastructure for them to function, including the massive land-reclamation project that created Bombay and the modern Indian Parliament building to name but two.
I do not seek to diminish Britain's contribution to India's industry, but I doubt it was done for the sake of the people of India.


It was still minority franchise just like the UK and Senatores were still chosen not elected, not totally dissimilar to the way one got into the House of Lords.
Senators were chosen by State legislatures, i.e. it was still a democratic process.


The Norse technology was centuries ahead of the Native equivilent.
Centuries? You mean sharper arrow points and such? So, a Viking felled by the Indian arrow would be dead, but the Indian felled by the Viking arrow would be deader? Metalworking would have given the Vikings some edge, but it would still be a melee. Considering the Natives' larger numbers, Viking prospects weren't looking too good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Better? Better how?

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.


So, they were "free" but didn't know it, so they chose to be free instead.

You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.


And that's the problem. When some "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" is telling me whether or not my people are ready to run their own affairs I can conclusively say that they aren't free.

Hell no. Seriously, the whole idea of the Wise and Benevolent "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" deciding on whether or not I'm mature enough to be free is infuriating.

You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.

Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?


By the time of the British conquest much of India was already under Hindu Marathan rule.

The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.


I do not seek to diminish Britain's contribution to India's industry, but I doubt it was done for the sake of the people of India.


Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.


Senators were chosen by State legislatures, i.e. it was still a democratic process.

But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.

quote]Centuries? You mean sharper arrow points and such? So, a Viking felled by the Indian arrow would be dead, but the Indian felled by the Viking arrow would be deader? Metalworking would have given the Vikings some edge, but it would still be a melee. Considering the Natives' larger numbers, Viking prospects weren't looking too good.[/QUOTE]

I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.

It is a common misconception that metel weapons are sharper than flint or obsidion ones when in fact the reverse is true. The sharpest blades are obsidion, the edge being 1 micron wide as opposed to the 20 microns of the sharpest steel blade
.
However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.

[rvg]

How? I told you, 100% coverage by professional law enforcement and Fire Service for starters. Our legislature is also not currently paralysed.Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.


You can mince words as much as you like, but the preamble to the 1911 act indicates that the goal was Indian self-governance developed over time.Preambles are great. Great because they allow one to declare lofty goals and at the same time hold zero legal weight.



You are ban of bloody insurrection, then?

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.
transitions and negotiations are great when they don't require centuries to actually bear fruit.



Take the average Afgan, you think he enjoys his "freedom", or might he have prefered his King and a modicum of peace?

Oh, I'm sure he'd pick the king. His king though, not the British one.




The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.
How does it suggest that? It took Britain three wars to subdue the unified Marathan resistance. If anything, the history suggests otherwise.


Then you don't know much about British Colonial policy - which was to trade, not to extract. The British philosophy was "Paternalism", British supremacy in art, governance, technology and science was considered self evident. One of the prime objectives of the Empire was to spread those virtues.Paternalism, eh? No wonder they couldn't wait any longer.


But not directly elected, and nor is the president even today. Those who could stand for election were the wealthy with the money to campaign and then travel between Washington D.C. and their home States. As I said, little different from England at the time.
Lincoln was a small time lawyer from Illinois, a one term Congressman and a virtual unknown as far as the nation was concerned. Yet, he became president.


I mean Dragon Boats, maile armour, iron helms, swords, battle axes, limewood shields, longbows.
Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.


However, the Norsemen would have had every other advantage. In particular, the Norse were conditioned to fight pitched battles and to defend fortified strongholds. By contrast, the Natives would have had stone axes and spear heads and probably shortbows with flint arrowheads. Flint can't cut iron maile, but iron can shatter flint.That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Law Enforcement and Fire Services are the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government. I do not see a problem with coverage, as the damn cops are on every corner.

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.

Meh to the rest, because I'm suddenly more interested in this:


Dragon boats would be useless as Vikings were the ones being raided, not the ones doing the raiding. Iron would have been an advantage, but not enough of an advantage.

That's all good and such, except that Vikings weren't engaged in a war, they were being raided. Repeatedly. Now, I'm not a tribal chief, but if I were to raid someone, I wouldn't raid a fort, I'd raid a farming community. Kill all men, take the women and the rest of the livestock and call it a day. In a way Vikings got the taste of their own medicine.

I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.

[rvg]

We have County (or cross-county) Constabularies and regional Fire Services. In the US most law enforcement if still provided by sheriffs outside the major metropolitan areas, and there was a story last year about a guy in a rural area who had his house burn down because he hadn't paid some surcharge for the city Fire Service to cover his house.

Like I said, we have 100% coverage by professionals.
You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.





I'd like to hear the evidence of sustained raiding against the Norse settlers (they aren't "Vikings" because "Vikings" are pirates). From what I know the Sagas provide no evidence to back up your narrative, there were never large Norse communities to be raided, for one, and no one ever bothered to stay long-term. If the Norse king had wanted to settle Vinland he was perfectly capable of outfitting a fleet and sending Thanes and Huscarls.

He didn't bother.

So, evidence of sustained raiding and carrying off of women and livestock please.
I have one word for you: Skraelings...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.

[quote]I have one word for you: Skraelings...

Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.

[rvg]

[QUOTE=rvg;2053441942]You also have to pay a lot more on taxes. I'll take the U.S. system any day.

The average marginal tax rate in the UK is about 20%, and you pay no tax on the first £8,000. Only the rich pay more tax here.
You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT



Nice word, now show me evidence of sustained and effective raiding in Vinland.
Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're forgetting the 17% abomination known as VAT

What, sales tax?

THe US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates


Greenland Saga speaks directly of conflict between Vikings and Skraelings.

It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.

[rvg]

What, sales tax?
Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.


The US has multiple levels of tax, the UK has only one - plus Council rates
Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2008/03/uk-vs-us-taxes.html

George Bush is a stronger believer in income equality than Gordon Brown.
These figures (pdf) from the CBO (via Greg Mankiw and the Kruse Kronicle) show that the poorest fifth of Americans paid an average of 4.3% of their income in federal taxes whilst the richest fifth paid 25.5%.
How do these figures compare to the UK? Table 16A here gives the answer. The poorest quintile in the UK paid 36.5% of their income in tax, whilst the richest fifth actually paid less - 35.5%.



It says a large number of the natives attacked and were repulsed with minimal casualties. That in no way amounts to "raiding", in fact it seems to have been a single event triggered by a native stealing something and being killed as a result.

The Norse went back at least one more time, and probably again later.

That sort of attack is very common at the time, it hardly amounts to a Hall burning and in fac the site discovered in Newfoundland bears to marks of attack that I have heard of.
Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.

[Noncommunist]

I find that difficult to understand. I can appreciate the desire to "seize" freedom, but if the result is that you bequeeth a corrupt state or future Civil War to your children it isn't worth it, especially if your children will be granted peaceful freedom anyway. Self-rule is only one form of freedom, and it has no value if the only rule you can exercise is where your feet rest before some warlord runs you through.


Except that India did not experience it. Sure, there have been a few wars and issues but India has had uninterrupted democracy since independence which is pretty impressive for new countries.


The British Raj included almost 600 petty states. Parts of India might have been unified, but the history suggests it was unlikely to last.

Germany and Italy at the time had been a few dozen states. However, they were able to consolidate and turn into fairly effective countries. Presumably, some of the same technology would have been available to any of the larger states which would allow them to take advantage of their size and take over a more solid chunk of the sub-continent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.


Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2008/03/uk-vs-us-taxes.html

Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.


Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.

The Greenlanders were only there a few years, five at the outside, there is no "pattern" of harrasment because they weren't there long enough to form one. Also, you'll note that the attack apparently happened in the winter and they returned the following Ssummer with lumber and grapes. The latter means they could travel unimpeded down the Eastern Seaboard of America and go far enough inland to harvest wild fruit.

What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.

As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except that India did not experience it. Sure, there have been a few wars and issues but India has had uninterrupted democracy since independence which is pretty impressive for new countries.



Germany and Italy at the time had been a few dozen states. However, they were able to consolidate and turn into fairly effective countries. Presumably, some of the same technology would have been available to any of the larger states which would allow them to take advantage of their size and take over a more solid chunk of the sub-continent.

For this argument you have to look at the Sub Continent as a whole. The Settlement didn't work, India and Pakistan broke apart and fought several wars, East and West Pakistan broke apart in a bloody Civil War, 1948 saw mass displacements of people, progroms and purges.

Not what Mountbatten and the Raj government wanted.

[rvg]

Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.
The income taxes vary by state. Some states have 3% income tax, some have 5%, some don't have any income tax whatsoever. Same with sales taxes: People's Republic of California charges a staggering 11% sales tax, while the neighboring Oregon doesn't have a sales tax at all. Most states have a sales tax between 4% and 7%. So, once it's all tallied up we definitely have lower tax rates when it comes to individuals.



What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.
Isn't that the point of harassment? To make life so uncomfortable for the adversary that they pack up an leave. Vikings were badasses, but not even a Viking would cherish the idea of plowing the fields in full battle gear.


As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.Actually, that fact is telling me that they were looking for a place to settle, but didn't find one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The income taxes vary by state. Some states have 3% income tax, some have 5%, some don't have any income tax whatsoever. Same with sales taxes: People's Republic of California charges a staggering 11% sales tax, while the neighboring Oregon doesn't have a sales tax at all. Most states have a sales tax between 4% and 7%. So, once it's all tallied up we definitely have lower tax rates when it comes to individuals.

I don't deny that taxes are lower in the US, but the treasury is also emptier.

My point was that the source you linked was obscuring the figures. A better comparison would be to add Federal and State income taxes together, and then compare to the 20% base rate here, adjusting for the fact that noboday pays tax on the first £8000.


Isn't that the point of harassment? To make life so uncomfortable for the adversary that they pack up an leave. Vikings were badasses, but not even a Viking would cherish the idea of plowing the fields in full battle gear.

Actually, that fact is telling me that they were looking for a place to settle, but didn't find one.

Your thesis has variously been that:

A) the Norse were massacred.

B) the Norse were repeatedly raided.

Neither of those are born up by the evidence. I'll freely admit that the Norse don't seem to have felt it worthwhile to stay, but if you contrast that with the stiff opposition the Saxons put up to Cnut's successful Norse invasion a few decades later you have to conclude it was a lack of motivation more than anything. For one thing, you had to cross the Atlantic.

Oh, and re: bringin animals, that's a necessity if you plan on wintering in somewhere, you need milk and cheese to sustain you if you weren't able to plant any crops the previous spring.

[rvg]

I don't deny that taxes are lower in the US, but the treasury is also emptier.
My point was that the source you linked was obscuring the figures. A better comparison would be to add Federal and State income taxes together, and then compare to the 20% base rate here, adjusting for the fact that noboday pays tax on the first £8000.
After all adjustments an average American still pays less than an average Englishman. That's all that matters.



Your thesis has variously been that:

A) the Norse were massacred.

B) the Norse were repeatedly raided.

Neither of those are born up by the evidence. I'll freely admit that the Norse don't seem to have felt it worthwhile to stay, but if you contrast that with the stiff opposition the Saxons put up to Cnut's successful Norse invasion a few decades later you have to conclude it was a lack of motivation more than anything. For one thing, you had to cross the Atlantic.

Oh, and re: bringin animals, that's a necessity if you plan on wintering in somewhere, you need milk and cheese to sustain you if you weren't able to plant any crops the previous spring.

Oh fine, be that way, here's your evidence:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

[gaelic cowboy]

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

They might have also being left behind an picked up by the Inuit after the Norse left or died out or whatever happened.

[rvg]

They might have also being left behind an picked up by the Inuit after the Norse left or died out or whatever happened.

Possible, except that the Inuits would have no use for armor except for raiding, unless they were also fond of wrestling with polar bears. Furthermore, the Beothuk people of Newfoundland were far more hostile than the Inuit. A conflict in Vinland is a more likely scenario, especially considering that Vinland didn't turn into an icebox like Greenland did.

[Noncommunist]

For this argument you have to look at the Sub Continent as a whole. The Settlement didn't work, India and Pakistan broke apart and fought several wars, East and West Pakistan broke apart in a bloody Civil War, 1948 saw mass displacements of people, progroms and purges.

Not what Mountbatten and the Raj government wanted.

Sure, it wasn't the best and the muslim portions of the subcontinent didn't do so hot but the majority of people do live in a solid democracy and a few live in shakier democracies but it still seems better than a government which was extremely negligent of the populous and is from far away with different cultural values.

Also, Britain has gone to war a number of times since the independence of India.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

After all adjustments an average American still pays less than an average Englishman. That's all that matters.



Oh fine, be that way, here's your evidence:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

I will emphasize this part:
"Inuit-Norse relations seem to have been fairly friendly at times, hostile at others. Few Inuit objects have been unearthed at the farms. Various Norse items, including bits of chain mail and a hinged bronze bar from a folding scale, have been found at Inuit camps in Greenland, mainland Canada, and on Baffin, Ellesmere, and Devon Islands. These are suggestive of commerce between the two peoples, but they may also have been seized by Inuit during raids on hunting parties in the Nordseta or plundered from farms."

From the Sagas we know that Norse would never trade away their weapons or armor. They were raided.

The Norse in Vinland, not the Norse in Greenland. Also, the Vinland episode is several hundred years before the Norse died out in Greenland. We can also be quite sure of why they died out: They starved, excavations in Greenland have shown that the Norse resorted to eating their dogs, the final stage of starvation before death.

There's one story related in that article which indicates 3 Norwegian ships and a number of Inuits came to blows, but it also says that two of the ships left after the Norse won the battle and only then could Innuit master the third.

[rvg]

The Norse in Vinland, not the Norse in Greenland. Also, the Vinland episode is several hundred years before the Norse died out in Greenland. We can also be quite sure of why they died out: They starved, excavations in Greenland have shown that the Norse resorted to eating their dogs, the final stage of starvation before death.

There's one story related in that article which indicates 3 Norwegian ships and a number of Inuits came to blows, but it also says that two of the ships left after the Norse won the battle and only then could Innuit master the third.
If the Inuits could raid the Norse, what would prevent the Beothuks from doing the same?

[Skullheadhq]

So the people that preached, lead, and fought in the Crusades were OK then?

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah#Religious_Minorities_and_the_Law_of_Differentiation)the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674%E2%80%93678))sieges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717%E2%80%93718))of Constantinople by the arabs and even Rome was sacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(846)) by the arabs once and later raided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ostia). Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Syria)and Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt), the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Clermont)from their Byzantine allies.


Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends

When the first crusade was called, the majority of the population in Syria and Palestine were (non-Chalcedonian) Christians like the Syriacs and the Maronites, suffering under arab joke for centuries.

But of course, the crusades were evil and muslims are innocent victims.

[Hax]

And now for the serious historical interpretation, with preferable less quoting from Wikipedia:


The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah#Religious_Minorities_and_the_Law_of_Differentiation)the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

It's funny that you should mention both the Turks (I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you mean the Seljuq Turks, who were relative newcomers at this stage in history) and the Caliph al-Hakim, who were not only political opponents, but followed completely different lines of ideology. Let's get going, on to a short history of Islam.

Islam isn't really that monolithic y'all know, right. The Fatimid Caliphate was of a distinct brand of Shi‘a Islam known as Isma'ilism or Sevener Shi‘ism. The Seljuk Sultans adhered to Sunni Islam, and their qadis were mostly of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.

Now, the Caliph al-Hakim gets a bad rep in history. It's not exactly clear why, but most of the sources that appear to be so horrible about him are post-Fatimid (who, sadly, wrote very little about him). In any case, while it's true that he showed some erratic behaviour, such as starting this bizarre cult (which eventually led to the Druze, but that's a different story), but non-Muslim sources tend not to describe him as some sort of horrible tyrant. He did come down especially hard on Sunni Muslims, removing them from office and replacing them with others. Particularly Jews and Christians. Yes, the same Jewish and Christians that had "suffered horribly" during his rule. Come on, Skullsie, I'd expected you to use better sources than those written by Sunni Muslims.


Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674%E2%80%93678))sieges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717%E2%80%93718))of Constantinople by the arabs and evenRome was sacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(846)) by the arabs once and later raided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ostia). Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Syria)and Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt), the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Clermont)from their Byzantine allies.

Yes, indeed quite horrible. I also think you're totally overplaying the role of religion in the conquest of Syria and Egypt. It should be stressed here that the primary cause for expansion was economical and political rather than religious. It'd be a bit like saying that the Japanese conquest of China, Manchuria and Korea was a religious cause in which they felt they had to spread Zen to this area. Seriously, there were a lot of Buddhist monks that actively supported the conquest of these regions for religious reasons.

As for Arab historiography, have you got any sources to back up the claims that treatment of Jews and (Monophysite) Christians was so bad after the coming of Islam? For example, I don't think anybody is willing to contest the fact that the Christians of Egypt were treated much worse under Byzantine rule than under Arab rule. To the Byzantines, they were heretics. To the Arabs, they were all Christians. Who cares, as long as they pay the taxes. Let's get a bit serious here.


suffering under arab joke for centuries.

Citation required. Also the term is yoke​.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

Except for the much later expeditions by the Teutonic Knights the Crusader/Jihad Wars were really a long drawn out battle between Eastern Islamic powers and (more) Western Christian ones which ran from about 700 AD when the Muslim armies came roaring out of Arabia up to Ataturk's Turkish reconquests in the 1920's.

People today who decry the Crusades do so either out of ignorance or for ideaological reasons.

Within the larger frame the bit people don't like to talk about is the part where the Greco-Latin West almost completely lost, able to push the frontiers back only to the Western Balkans in the East and Gibralta in the West. That's pretty pathetic militarily speaking, about 2/3rds of Christendom as it was circa 400 AD fell to the various Muslim invasions and basically only Iberia and (much later) Greece were ever recovered.

Of course, we went off to the New World where the heathans were a lot less scary and didn't have massed cavalry and guns.

[Hax]

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

Indeed! My apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

This is emphasised even further by Arab historiography, who didn't regard the Crusaders as that much as an alien force, but rather as a continuation of a long series of Byzantine attacks against the Syrian domain. To that effect, various Arab Caliphs, Sultans, and Emirs regarded the Byzantine Emperor as the spokesman for the Crusaders and would rather go to them.

The Crusades didn't really make that much of an impact on the Muslim world as a whole: they were regarded as yet another player in an already troubled field. The Seljuq Empire was falling apart, various kingdoms had declared independence throughout the region and when Muhammad Shah sent an army to relieve or reconquer Jerusalem, it was destroyed. Not by Christian armies, but rather by the Muslim Emirate of Mosul.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed! My apologies if that didn't come across clearly.

This is emphasised even further by Arab historiography, who didn't regard the Crusaders as that much as an alien force, but rather as a continuation of a long series of Byzantine attacks against the Syrian domain. To that effect, various Arab Caliphs, Sultans, and Emirs regarded the Byzantine Emperor as the spokesman for the Crusaders and would rather go to them.

The Crusades didn't really make that much of an impact on the Muslim world as a whole: they were regarded as yet another player in an already troubled field. The Seljuq Empire was falling apart, various kingdoms had declared independence throughout the region and when Muhammad Shah sent an army to relieve or reconquer Jerusalem, it was destroyed. Not by Christian armies, but rather by the Muslim Emirate of Mosul.


It's not you - it's all the mighty Socialist-atheists I'm pre-empting. Not that they care as they consider everything I say LIES anyway.

:stare: