Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[gaelic cowboy]

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Strike For The South]

It was a joke brah

[drone]

The only man above reproach is Teddy Roosevelt

[Ironside]

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?

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

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.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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!".

[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

[Noncommunist]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[rvg]

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?

[Strike For The South]

Washington has never gotten my juices flowing like Franklin or Madison

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[rvg]

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

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.

What's wrong with that?

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.

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

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.

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

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.

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

Que?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

[rvg]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

So your example is weak imo.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?


As for PVC. History is not something you learn because you feel happy inside when you imagine you are deflating other peoples delusions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?

Great way to misinterpret what I am saying Sasaki. Love it when people put terrible racial slurs in my mouth.

Where's Vuk? I think I finally have something we can bond over.

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

[rvg]

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

Oh yeah, the were merely Untermenschen. How dare they yearn for equality...

[Greyblades]

Well, it's gratifying knowing I'm not the only one who has a habit of reading things that are not there.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@rvg: rose tinted glassses?

Re: George Washington look at his track record when he still lead British troops against the American Indians. Not particularly awe inspiring that one.
Re: equality: places such as Manchester paid more in taxes and had if possible even less representation for the ordinary folk. Parliament in those days didn't mean that because you paid taxes you were somehow able to influence an MP. The representatives of then would make the current crop of Congress critters blush.

American Independence was ostensibly about "no taxation without representation" but in the same manner the Dutch ostensibly fought for "religious freedom" in the 16th century. The difference being that American Independence was fought over in a time of newspapers and public sympathy rooting for the Americans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.

What's wrong with that?

Who said "wrong"?

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.