I think we're redoing this into it's own thing.
Random History Thread
- Thread starter Perun
- Start date
So thoughts.
1) We should spin this off into its own thread once we're ready.
2) Let's calibrate "great/good/average/bad/terrible" for each category.
3) Let's present presidents in a random order, rather than chronologically.
4) Let's agree that for the purposes of this exercise, Wikipedia articles are good enough.
5) Let's discuss if we're judging these presidents on 21st century morals, or morals equivalent to the time in which they lived.
1) We should spin this off into its own thread once we're ready.
2) Let's calibrate "great/good/average/bad/terrible" for each category.
3) Let's present presidents in a random order, rather than chronologically.
4) Let's agree that for the purposes of this exercise, Wikipedia articles are good enough.
5) Let's discuss if we're judging these presidents on 21st century morals, or morals equivalent to the time in which they lived.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
I agree this should be discussed. I believe we all are going to agree to draw the line at slavery, for example - which really should have been seen as wicked even at the time, but what about other controversial things like Manifest Destiny or segregation (in theory, not in practice)?
Also, I'd propose that - unless proven - we'd not presume malice if plain stupidity was enough.
And
thank you for this. God knows I've had my share of arguing with various historical alt-truthers from different sides of the barricade.
I am a big fan of stupidity over malice, for sure.
As for slavery, we see the motions against it start to become internationally recognized around like...1810-20, so before that I have a little leeway, after I have less. We need to determine whether or not we're approaching this from the standpoint of good for America at the time or good for the world as we today understand it.
Yes, the game part was a joke. We are not doing US Presidents Survivor, that's the sort of thing that gets the Secret Service knocking at your door. We're going to discuss presidents and rank 'em.
Good, I didn't get that it was a joke. These days, you can't be sure what's being suggested for a Survivor and what isn't.
As a non-American, I would support a "both" approach.
As a non-American, I would support a "both" approach.
So, judged at the time and judged today. Hmm, this could work and it would certainly lead to some dichotomy of thought.
Question: Do we evaluate Trump despite his first term not yet being finished?
Still considering the answer to moral judgments, will come back to that. I concur with Perun’s suggestion for a “both” approach to good for America vs the world. I also think for some presidents one of those approaches will be more important than the other.
Still considering the answer to moral judgments, will come back to that. I concur with Perun’s suggestion for a “both” approach to good for America vs the world. I also think for some presidents one of those approaches will be more important than the other.
I was intending on leaving him off the list.
It might be fun to revisit this in November if he loses, or in 4 years when this forum becomes RavenAgeFans.
The latter would truly be a sign of the end times.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Isn't the fact that re-election of Trump is still considered plausible despite what we've seen these last three years, already a sign of the end times?
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
I still have trouble with the "good for America" vs "good for the world", because I think that's kinda too... "utilitarianistic" of an approach.
My point being, if a decision or policy is immoral, it can never be for the betterment of the nation. The end never justifies the means.
But that all gets muddied with true intentions of the people behind it and the degree and depth of moral knowledge of the people at hand.
I'm talking of this because we could then try to discuss whether abolition was actually "good for America" or not.
EDIT: Let me clarify that position a bit more - what I mean is that it's different to look upon something from our current 21st century point of view and try to see that from the moral point of view at the time (which I thought was the original point 5), but that does not equal whether it's profitable for the country or not. Even then people could and should have known the moral implications of various things (especially if the country was founded "under God") and I don't believe it's something that only we invented or consider.
Now, let's say he's terrible and a buffoon and an affront to common human decency, but he's gonna be forgotten soon and his legacy will be pretty short-lived. Wouldn't a much more competent and affable president who'd poison the well for decades be much, much worse? That's why I wonder whether we all will actually agree upon him being really the worst.
My point being, if a decision or policy is immoral, it can never be for the betterment of the nation. The end never justifies the means.
But that all gets muddied with true intentions of the people behind it and the degree and depth of moral knowledge of the people at hand.
I'm talking of this because we could then try to discuss whether abolition was actually "good for America" or not.
EDIT: Let me clarify that position a bit more - what I mean is that it's different to look upon something from our current 21st century point of view and try to see that from the moral point of view at the time (which I thought was the original point 5), but that does not equal whether it's profitable for the country or not. Even then people could and should have known the moral implications of various things (especially if the country was founded "under God") and I don't believe it's something that only we invented or consider.
Now, let's say he's terrible and a buffoon and an affront to common human decency, but he's gonna be forgotten soon and his legacy will be pretty short-lived. Wouldn't a much more competent and affable president who'd poison the well for decades be much, much worse? That's why I wonder whether we all will actually agree upon him being really the worst.
Last edited:
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I think chronological order is fine, will make it easier to see who is left rather than some random order in which one could forget the lesser known presidents. I had completely forgetten about Taft, Pierce, Taylor, etc. And have no clue about their presidencies. The only reason I'm aware of Polk is the conflict with Mexico and his spy Poinsett who gave the Noche Buena (Poinsetta) to the world.
as for point 5 I agree with Perun, both. Also aside from hot topics like slavery, I think it is unfair to take the person out of their historical context and judged from our current POV. Jackson is a great example. He is seen as a good president, he is on the 20 after all. But how to forget this attrocities in Florida and the Trail of Tears?
Presidents are utilitarian people. They aren't hired to be good for the world, they are hired to advance their policy for the USA. That's why I mentioned both.
This is entirely untrue, though. Immoral decisions better the nation all the time. The UK, for example, was greatly bettered by colonialism - the increase in wealth, power, luxuries allowed the UK to change dynamically and become a leading nation in all ways for a very long time. The colonized people, of course, paid an unquantifiable price, but if you go and ask the people who led colonization if it was worth it...or the Britons who lived in that time...
Yeah, see? It's hard.
If we’re talking colonization, the very founding of America was immoral and the necessary reparations have still not been issued. By that token, any actions to progress the nation built on stolen land is immoral and, as Judas says, the ends do not justify the means. So no
president can pass that litmus test.
president can pass that litmus test.
there are a lot of assumptions here. Assuming he loses in November, assuming none of his actions have long term affects (this has already been proven to not be the case), assuming American politics return to normal after he leaves office.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
But that's precisely looking at it from the current moral point of view. My point being, at the time, was the colonialism legitimate? (not legal, legitimate) Was there a reason for it to be considered a theft then? Was every approach of every country then the same?
Were there people whose intentions might have been actually good, there or anywhere else (to "civilize the uncivilized", you know what I mean).
Or was it always a known theft motivated by malice?
That's why I talked about the depth of moral knowledge. And that's why I differentiate between Manifest Destiny and slavery.
I believe the former might have been justifiable at the time and done in good faith, though we see it as wrong today. I don't think the latter was justifiable in any way and was a perversion of any semblance of Christian thinking.
But we might disagree, just like we might disagree with Loosey; let's just say that my rule of thumb (and not just mine, but let's say it's just mine) would be that for an action to be moral, the object, the intention and the circumstances must be moral. According to a respective situation, according to a respective current state of conscience.
I'm sorry to actually make this more difficult than it already is and I'm sorry I can't express myself as well as I'd probably like.
Let's just put this behind us, but let me say I appreciated your answers.
I don't think whether he'll be a two- or one-term will be relevant for that, I don't know what "long term" are we talking about (years? decades?) and I don't think the politics will return to normal, but I also don't think they were normal before.
Sorry, but you can't blame Trump for the state of the US politics, IMHO. I'm not an expert and I don't want to get into a heated politics discussion, but to me, as an outsider, both parties are tragic and unacceptable and I honestly don't know where this all leads, but IMHO Trump's the symptom, not the cause.
To have an unpopular opinion once again (and please, consider this a hot take - this is not really the time nor the place) - I consider Reagan's (and Thatcher's) influence to be much more destructive and toxic... and possibly even responsible for the state of the politics nowadays, the state of the Right, the state of the US and Trump himself. But like I said, unpopular, possibly crazy opinion, I'm gonna shut up for now and I really enjoy reading your discussions (I always do) and participating from time to time. Anyway, it's been a blast.
*tips hat*
Colonialism was consistently justified by the needs of the core state to expand its capacity for resources and to make war; to civilize the savage; to find locations to send undesireables; to gain improved geopolitical strategic position. Are those legitimate in the 1600s? If so, do those reasons remain legitimate in the 1800s?
Manifest Destiny suffers from the same evils as colonialism, excepting that instead of enslaving the tribes living in conquered land, the USA committed genocide against them. If we're judging them through the modern lens, there's no excuse for the vast majority of motions. Not to mention early Manifest Destiny (land acquisitions in the 1840-1860 time period) were driven no small part in the desire to obtain new lands for slaveholders.