Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Like I said your objection isn't truly to the theory it's to people feeling differently about owning slaves.

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

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

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

How have we really characterized the founders? I don't think we have in a consistent way.

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

And certainly the people who actually know the history don't characterize them as a homogeneous entity. Don't put too much effort into attacking the middle school social studies curriculum.

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

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

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

[Noncommunist]

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

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

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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