Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow, and I thought I was the only one not sold on Abe's greatness. In any event, I do not believe in judging historical figures by the standards of our time. He may not have liked gay people (or he may have been engaging in gay anti-gay pathology) but he did not try to push those beliefs on the nation through legislation. His management of the nation was largely socially disinterested.

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

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

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

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

My bad. Sorry. :(

[Whacker]

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

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Disagree.

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

And homophobia and racism are often merely ignorance.

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

[Whacker]

Disagree.

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

And homophobia and racism are often merely ignorance.

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

I disagree with them - let the best argument win.

Because people work like that???

We are just apes in suits just trying to live our lives,

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

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

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


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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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

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

[Skullheadhq]

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

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs and even Rome was sacked by the arabs once and later raided. Syria and Egypt, the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help from their Byzantine allies.

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

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

But of course, the crusades were evil and muslims are innocent victims.

[Hax]

And now for the serious historical interpretation, with preferable less quoting from Wikipedia:

The Turks and Caliph Hakim before them had horribly mistreated the Christians and Jews in Palestine. Hakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and was only allowed to be rebuilt in 1042 with Byzantine money, no compensation was given.

It's funny that you should mention both the Turks (I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you mean the Seljuq Turks, who were relative newcomers at this stage in history) and the Caliph al-Hakim, who were not only political opponents, but followed completely different lines of ideology. Let's get going, on to a short history of Islam.

Islam isn't really that monolithic y'all know, right. The Fatimid Caliphate was of a distinct brand of Shi‘a Islam known as Isma'ilism or Sevener Shi‘ism. The Seljuk Sultans adhered to Sunni Islam, and their qadis were mostly of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.

Now, the Caliph al-Hakim gets a bad rep in history. It's not exactly clear why, but most of the sources that appear to be so horrible about him are post-Fatimid (who, sadly, wrote very little about him). In any case, while it's true that he showed some erratic behaviour, such as starting this bizarre cult (which eventually led to the Druze, but that's a different story), but non-Muslim sources tend not to describe him as some sort of horrible tyrant. He did come down especially hard on Sunni Muslims, removing them from office and replacing them with others. Particularly Jews and Christians. Yes, the same Jewish and Christians that had "suffered horribly" during his rule. Come on, Skullsie, I'd expected you to use better sources than those written by Sunni Muslims.

Anatolia, Christian since 200-300AD and Byzantine core territory since ages, was conquered by the zealous Seljuqs after the civil war following the battle of Manzikert. This was preceded by centuries of raiding of Byzantine lands and two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs and evenRome was sacked by the arabs once and later raided. Syria and Egypt, the centre of Christianity, was subjugated by the Jihad following the death of Muhammed. The crusade was an answer to the call for help from their Byzantine allies.

Yes, indeed quite horrible. I also think you're totally overplaying the role of religion in the conquest of Syria and Egypt. It should be stressed here that the primary cause for expansion was economical and political rather than religious. It'd be a bit like saying that the Japanese conquest of China, Manchuria and Korea was a religious cause in which they felt they had to spread Zen to this area. Seriously, there were a lot of Buddhist monks that actively supported the conquest of these regions for religious reasons.

As for Arab historiography, have you got any sources to back up the claims that treatment of Jews and (Monophysite) Christians was so bad after the coming of Islam? For example, I don't think anybody is willing to contest the fact that the Christians of Egypt were treated much worse under Byzantine rule than under Arab rule. To the Byzantines, they were heretics. To the Arabs, they were all Christians. Who cares, as long as they pay the taxes. Let's get a bit serious here.

suffering under arab joke for centuries.

Citation required. Also the term is yoke​.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All more of less true - but even so, you can't look at the Crusades as "yarrr! attack".

Except for the much later expeditions by the Teutonic Knights the Crusader/Jihad Wars were really a long drawn out battle between Eastern Islamic powers and (more) Western Christian ones which ran from about 700 AD when the Muslim armies came roaring out of Arabia up to Ataturk's Turkish reconquests in the 1920's.

People today who decry the Crusades do so either out of ignorance or for ideaological reasons.

Within the larger frame the bit people don't like to talk about is the part where the Greco-Latin West almost completely lost, able to push the frontiers back only to the Western Balkans in the East and Gibralta in the West. That's pretty pathetic militarily speaking, about 2/3rds of Christendom as it was circa 400 AD fell to the various Muslim invasions and basically only Iberia and (much later) Greece were ever recovered.

Of course, we went off to the New World where the heathans were a lot less scary and didn't have massed cavalry and guns.