Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

What would be some examples?

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

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

The question is, why on earth would having tons of empathy (as opposed to above average empathy)

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

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

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

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

Well, if the thoughts were truly misogynistic, then there is something to be said about that. If it is unrelated to their field of philosophy, then it shouldn't alter our view of their ideas just as Washington's view of slavery says nothing about his character as Commander in Chief. If they are making a big fuss out of nothing or are assigning an interpretation that the philosopher obviously never intended, then it is just silly and not worth paying attention to.

Two thoughts:

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....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What would be some examples?

The other stuff we've talked about?

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

What moral axioms?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The other stuff we've talked about?

What, the lying example? The one where I said I don't consider lying to be inherently wrong in the first place?

What moral axioms?

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

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

So? You make it seem like anybody who didn't whip their slaves until their backs became giant scars are paragons of humanity.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

What?

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

You should say "no".

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

...and thus ACIN wins by default.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

...and thus ACIN wins by default.

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

True.

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

Why not?

However, it is the duty of an enlightened society to continually seek a more just and fair approach.

How do we do that without judging the past with our inherent biases?

Some day they'll look back on 21st Century America and say a lot of bad things about what's been going on, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

And this means what? Again, this is the kind of "everyone is biased, nobody is wrong, everything is a just a matter of perspective." sillyness that makes me so afraid of joining Sasaki's side.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spankythehippo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

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

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

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

[spankythehippo]

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

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

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

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

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

Now for some Churchill trivia!

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

[rvg]

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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


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

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


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

[rvg]

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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 as I said 2 or 3 times now he deserves his place as a great man, and he seems to have rejected slavery in his later life.

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

[Strike For The South]

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

Go back to your physics book, knave

[gaelic cowboy]

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

Go back to your physics book, knave

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

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

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

[rvg]

I merely reject the myth.

What myth?

[gaelic cowboy]

What myth?

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

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

[rvg]

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

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

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

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

[rvg]

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

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

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

[rvg]

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

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

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