Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-22-2014, 07:33 PM
 
282 posts, read 445,746 times
Reputation: 369

Advertisements

Because it never happened or happened far less than what is exaggerated, but people want to feel self-righteous about something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2014, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,191,266 times
Reputation: 16937
Quote:
Originally Posted by muer22 View Post
And the name calling begins...it only took 5 posts for civility to break down . We dont know southerns accepted racism? Where did that comment come from?Everyone knows southerns accepted slavery, murder of slaves, denial of education. Unlike you, we just dont think it was right, neither did many abolitionists in the northern USA
But can you say for absolutely certain that if you had been raised in a southern society where slavery was accepted as normal, and its all you knew, that you would most likely also accept it? Nobody can. Unless the agenda is to continue to keep the scores burning, applying the word 'right' is not dealing with history but agendas. And the abolitions were not all so egalitarian either. It's far better to deal with history as it was, and not blame people for their experience growing in a different world, and allow people to move on.

My five x grandfather was hauled here on a slave ship as a convict under forced indenture by a British court. I could see it as a terrible wrong to use the poor who were trying to survive as forced labor, because they could, and there was plenty of 'excess population' to be used until used up. But it was the world it was. Far better to let it be and acknowledge it was a different time and move on.

In three hundred years, what of our acts we consider proper will be questioned as the eventual results are known? Should be be expected to know?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 08:59 PM
 
105 posts, read 153,215 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
The first part is too general. If it was not normal to have such sensibilities then you cannot condem the people of a time for not having them. People make decision based on what they have been lived and what is believed..
We happen to disagree. You are saying that the majority will always be right. People deciding to evict Natives off the land is moral because most of the people agreed with westward expansion ? What do you think of the wife of the Winchester Rifles? She agreed with selling weapons to "win the west", then later went crazy as she sought sanctuary from the Native spirits by build the now infamous Winchester mansion in San Jose. So are you saying Ms. Winchester was moral one part of her life then moral another part of her life with a completely different view? Please explain.

My rebuttal is sometimes Barbarians who rape, torture, and war against other people rule nations. Just because they are might does not make them right.

Another argument is that by using the southern USA you are establishing an arbitrary division. I can, in the same spirit, say the majority of them people in southern Texas support a cause therefore it is right. Yes right if it does not go against the rights of other people. This is where we diverge.

Many southerns disagreed with slavery...uhhh no thats not correct. Yes the French speaking Mark Twain did, but he was not your average southerner. You should read The Cotton Kingdom by Abolitionist Frederick Law Olmsted. In his journal you will see almost no sympathy for slaves. The few sympathizers he found were the Irish. Also the people of Western Virginia were against slavery which is why the suceeded and became West Virginia. There were other abolitionist pockets in the south, to my knowledge in more mountainous regions where slavery was notnthat useful...Kentucky, East Tennessee
And yes Tallinn, Estonia, my bad
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,702,293 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Yes, but don't you imagine that is everyone's justification? .
No. I think I am different from people who own huge news networks who slant history to meet the editorial complexion demanded by advertisers who pay billions for exposure next to convenient lies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,191,266 times
Reputation: 16937
Quote:
Originally Posted by muer22 View Post
We happen to disagree. You are saying that the majority will always be right. People deciding to evict Natives off the land is moral because most of the people agreed with westward expansion ? What do you think of the wife of the Winchester Rifles? She agreed with selling weapons to "win the west", then later went crazy as she sought sanctuary from the Native spirits by build the now infamous Winchester mansion in San Jose. So are you saying Ms. Winchester was moral one part of her life then moral another part of her life with a completely different view? Please explain.

My rebuttal is sometimes Barbarians who rape, torture, and war against other people rule nations. Just because they are might does not make them right.

Another argument is that by using the southern USA you are establishing an arbitrary division. I can, in the same spirit, say the majority of them people in southern Texas support a cause therefore it is right. Yes right if it does not go against the rights of other people. This is where we diverge.


Many southerns disagreed with slavery...uhhh no thats not correct. Yes the French speaking Mark Twain did, but he was not your average southerner. You should read The Cotton Kingdom by Abolitionist Frederick Law Olmsted. In his journal you will see almost no sympathy for slaves. The few sympathizers he found were the Irish. Also the people of Western Virginia were against slavery which is why the suceeded and became West Virginia. There were other abolitionist pockets in the south, to my knowledge in more mountainous regions where slavery was notnthat useful...Kentucky, East Tennessee
And yes Tallinn, Estonia, my bad
No, I'm not saying that the majority will always be right. I'm saying that 'right' is a judgement which does not really belong in history. It is the story of how our past generations lives unfolded, and they made decisions based upon what their society had taught them. I'm saying it is *incorrect* to say that the actions of a generation three hundred years ago, say, are 'right' or 'wrong' since you do not know their mindset. If you want to impose that on a historical narrative, then you are slipping into preacing morality.

We can say, as a moral idea, that imposing harm is wrong, but we can't crawl into the mind of someone else who lived in a very different world. People did things out of kindness, for instance, which would not be viewed as that now. I'm saying that you have to make these judgements based on the time and the norm of the time and what was considered proper. Say in the future we no longer eat meat. Would you think its fair to condem all the people today who eat meat as wrong?

The classic example is the practice of genocide. In biblical times, it was often the norm. If you fought and won the land with the river running through it, and all of them just happened to die, then nobody was going to come after you and try to take it back. If there was a siege, both sides would kill everyone just because they wouldn't surrender. Were they being terrible people if it was what you did? But this cannot be used to excuse Adoph Hitler since he didn't live in those times.

We should *study* history with an open mind and an appreciation that what we study was a different time with different perceptions of 'normal' and different ways considered acceptable and not judge people who are long dead as 'bad' and 'good'. Lets just let them all be human. Histoy is an academic study, not a religious one. It should be about discovering how peoples lived and how it changed over time, not a lecture on moralistic judgement.

As for slavery, and I assume you specifically mean its form as practiced by the southern states of the United states, in the early 1800s. it is VERY true that it is a much more complex subject than most think it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 10:14 PM
 
18,056 posts, read 25,132,751 times
Reputation: 16760
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher5150 View Post
Why are people mad at what happened 60, 70, 90, 100, 200 years ago. Most of the people involved are dead and gone. What good is it going to be mad at some one who worked for the Nazis, what good is it going to do to you to be mad at a president who had slaves, what good is going to do you to be mad at Christopher Columbus for not being the first person to discover America? So why does it seem that everyone feels they need to bring up the past and complain about every chance they get?
One of the main factors for this is that people think that "some were good and some were bad"
If one hadn't enslaved the other (using slavery as an example) I guarantee it would have happened the other way around.

We can start by stop constantly saying H:tler was the worst person in the World but nobody ever says that President Truman was a bad person for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 10:24 PM
 
579 posts, read 759,009 times
Reputation: 617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
One of the main factors for this is that people think that "some were good and some were bad"
If one hadn't enslaved the other (using slavery as an example) I guarantee it would have happened the other way around.

We can start by stop constantly saying H:tler was the worst person in the World but nobody ever says that President Truman was a bad person for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.
Good point. It's not a sporting event where there is a scoreboard proclaiming winners and losers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 07:06 AM
 
105 posts, read 153,215 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
No, I'm not saying that the majority will always be right. I'm saying that 'right' is a judgement which does not really belong in history. It is the story of how our past generations lives unfolded, and they made decisions based upon ....

We can say, as a moral idea, that imposing harm is wrong, but we can't crawl into the mind of someone else who lived in a very different world. People did things out of kindness, for instance, which would not be viewed as that now.
I get your point,but a topic like WWII and slavery in the US were well documented. You can choose not to impose your perspectives on those events because there were oppositions to those events. In effect you are using the arguments that were used back then. I mentioned The Cotton Kingdom, it details the opposition to slavery and the possible effects it might have on future generations very well. I understand you consider it a bit invasive to inject our views, but it could be considered invasive to reject the arguments of those times.

Now considering whether the Sarmatians were immoral in the conquest of the Scythians...I wouldnt know because I dont have that information.

I dont agree with labeling things good or bad, because things can be complex, but I understand why it happens, people use detailed discussion to perform revisionism. The good and bad are suppossed to act as closure
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 08:13 AM
 
19,963 posts, read 30,075,271 times
Reputation: 40008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Part of it is just an American thing - being obsessed with the sins of the past, no matter how accurate or inaccurate, guilt complexes, obsession with political correctness. It's just Americans being American.

You go to England or Scotland - a site where they executed 1,000's of suspected witches? A town where the King massacred it's subjects? You name it. It's a good natured tourist attraction now complete with humorous ghost tours, they have festivals, markets celebrating it, holidays, just a merry old time.
this is a great post!! thanks for writing it..

obsessed with political correctness..... hit the nail on the head..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,157,947 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
History is a science.
History is most definitely not science because science is based on observation and experimentation and the testing of hypotheses.

While historians can propose hypotheses about how or why things in the past happened, they cannot prove that their theses are correct.

Furthermore, scientific hypotheses/theories change in response to the addition of facts or the conduct of new experimentation whereas historical hypotheses change in response to the time in which the current writers/viewers of historical facts live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top