Judging History (branch off from election thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I didn't mean you were frothing at the mouth :(

---

My bad. Sorry. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I don't mind people who are racist and sexist.

---

You don't mind that people are openly receptive to oppression and injustice?????

Quote:

---

I disagree with them - let the best argument win.

---

Because people work like that???

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuffstuff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Not true.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!"

????????

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Not true.

---

Elaborate?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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'.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Is this bad?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Elaborate?

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.)

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

That is not slavery. That is indentured servitude.

---

Sorry, that's just factually incorrect. Indentured servitude was a fixed-term system of debt/obligation and labor; selling yourself into 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sorry, that's just factually incorrect. Indentured servitude was a fixed-term system of debt/obligation and labor; selling yourself into 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.

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 to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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 ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The very first sentence of the wiki article for slavery you posted:
[B]Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.

---

Two thoughts:

1. Wikipedia is concise and useful, but not definitive. I linked to it not to prove a point but to provide background.
2. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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).

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Two thoughts:

1. Wikipedia is concise and useful, but not definitive. I linked to it not to prove a point but to provide background.
2. 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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

What would be some examples?

---

The other stuff we've talked about?

Quote:

---

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

---

What moral axioms?

Quote:

---

>:[ 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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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

---

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?!?"

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

You should say "no".

Quote:

---

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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

---

True.

Quote:

---

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

---

Why not?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

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

Go back to your physics book, knave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I merely reject the myth.

---

What myth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

It was a joke brah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The only man above reproach is Teddy Roosevelt

---

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

:tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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_Econ..._United_States

published 1913.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Washington has never gotten my juices flowing like Franklin or Madison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.