Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[spankythehippo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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