Random History Thread

We have moralistic statements from the pre-modern period against slavery, against territorial expansion, against war of aggression, against outcasting, against imposing will and culture upon others, etc. We also have moralistic statements for all these things from the same time. We can say that people knew better than to do all these things, and that they didn't. It's not so easy to determine what code an individual followed by, and even if we are able to determine the code, what will our judgement be aimed at? Their success or failure to follow the code? The fact that they were subject to the right or wrong code? And where do we take the authority for such a judgement from?
 
JudasMyGuide said:
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.
Click to expand...

This sentiment presupposes that utilitarianism can't be moral, which is incorrect. If you define utility in terms of the good of the nation in vacuum, sure, but it doesn't have to be defined that way.
 
Perun said:
We have moralistic statements from the pre-modern period against slavery, against territorial expansion, against war of aggression, against outcasting, against imposing will and culture upon others, etc. We also have moralistic statements for all these things from the same time. We can say that people knew better than to do all these things, and that they didn't. It's not so easy to determine what code an individual followed by, and even if we are able to determine the code, what will our judgement be aimed at? Their success or failure to follow the code? The fact that they were subject to the right or wrong code? And where do we take the authority for such a judgement from?
Click to expand...

But were they the norm? Aristotle hated Democracy, yet here we are.... I know democracy and slavery are not the same thing, just saying just because there was a philosopher/politician against the opinion, it doesn't mean it was shared by 99% of the people. LC stated that the tide began to turn against slavery around 1810, especially in Europe, but in the Americas (yes Anglo and Latin) it was far from erradicated nor was abolishing it the majority opinion.
 
Perun said:
The Clinton administration saw the American trade balance plummet and it hasn't seen any sustainable recovery since. This is one of the factors that have set the stage for MAGA
Click to expand...
That, and the MURDER!!
Norm MacDonald, even though he’s Canadian, is still a U.S. national treasure. “I thought it was a matter of record.” :lol:
#ClintonBodyCount

please don’t take this too seriously—humor is good
 
Last edited:
Onhell said:
But were they the norm? Aristotle hated Democracy, yet here we are....
Click to expand...

2300 years after Aristotle's death and the same 2300 years after the end of Athenian democracy. The democracy we have now is not a continuation of ancient Athens, it is a very different conception that usurped an ancient name.

just saying just because there was a philosopher/politician against the opinion, it doesn't mean it was shared by 99% of the people. LC stated that the tide began to turn against slavery around 1810, especially in Europe, but in the Americas (yes Anglo and Latin) it was far from erradicated nor was abolishing it the majority opinion.
Click to expand...

But it's possible to get an idea of how many people shared an opinion in the society we're talking about, and to get an idea what the person we are talking about believed in. To stay with your example, democracy was not a popular form of government for most of human history and the idea that democratic legitimacy is the only form of legitimacy is a very, very recent one. For instance, it was not before 1917 that it became the norm to adopt the monikers "democracy" or "republic" as the constitutional name for a country, and even then it took another world war to get rid of most people who would openly oppose the very term "democracy". Yet, between the end of Athenian democracy and the modern age, there have always been people who supported the idea of democracy. The idea of democratic or at least participative government was brought up all the time even if it was never the dominant or most popular form of government. So yeah, we'll have to stick with what I said: Determine what the person we are assessing believed in and whether they followed through with it or not. And on a secondary level, assess whether what they believed in was the right or wrong thing, ask whether they could or should have known better, or whether they were pioneering a good thing; at least this is what we should do if we want to rank the political performance of historical personalities.
 
Going back to the original five points:
LooseCannon said:
4) Let's agree that for the purposes of this exercise, Wikipedia articles are good enough.
Click to expand...
Yes, although any recommended materials beyond Wikipedia such as biographies/documentaries/etc for a given president are much appreciated.
 
Onhell said:
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.
Click to expand...
Getting back to this, the reason I don't want chronological order is because I think it's easier to calibrate in more of a vacuum, plus I kinda dread going through like the three Doughhead presidents in a row, the late 1800s presidents in a row...
 
LooseCannon said:
Getting back to this, the reason I don't want chronological order is because I think it's easier to calibrate in more of a vacuum, plus I kinda dread going through like the three Doughhead presidents in a row, the late 1800s presidents in a row...
Click to expand...
Considering you are doing the heavy lifting here, and by that I mean ALL the lifting, why not just do it how you think best?
 
So in the context of Churchill's statues being demolished because he was racist; was his role in WWII so important that without him it could've gone a different way, and if yes, does that cut him enough slack to let the racism slide?
 
I'm pretty sure that to avoid controversy they would just stop playing Aces High all together. Or put it in the middle of the set so that an intro isn't needed.
 
Night Prowler said:
So in the context of Churchill's statues being demolished because he was racist; was his role in WWII so important that without him it could've gone a different way, and if yes, does that cut him enough slack to let the racism slide?
Click to expand...

I'd have thought that's a no-brainer; a man should be remembered by his actions rather than his opinions, and I think in this instance it's especially important given the sheer scale of change prompted by the second world war. Furthermore it's worth noting that in the early days of the war Churchill was one of few individuals in Westminster not willing to bend over backwards in the name of appeasing Hitler (although such appeasement is perhaps understandable given that the first world war was still fairly recent). I'd also like to add that it's a little unfair to judge historical figures through the lens of modern morality; given the rate of social change since the end of the war, I'm sure you could denigrate every single major figure in history given enough time and motivation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top