A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
BillVol wrote: Lincoln was a complete bigot and racist
Looking at it by today's standards, indubitably. But, as any historian will tell you, context is everything. Was Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers complete bigots and racists because they owned slaves? If so, this nation was built on a lie and by evil men. And if so, the USA does not even deserve to exist now, does it? Lincoln was one of the most progressive and tolerant people of his era. Expecting him to 'get' the reality of racism back then is like asking you to understand the barbaric cruelty of wearing leather shoes or not being a Vegan (which, btw, I am not, being the crude savage that I am). If we were all judged by the standards of a higher consciousness future, we would all fail miserably.
I was thinking along those same lines. However, there were politicians from that era who were even more progressive and tolerant than Lincoln, such as John Adams. On the other hand, Lincoln probably was nowhere near the most intolerant politican of his era either, but I wouldn't say the same thing about Churchill. Lincoln was born into a country in which slavery was legal and in which the constitution said Blacks and Native Americans were inferior beings. Churchill was born into a country in which slavery had been abolished more than 60 years earlier and made no distinction between people based on skin color.
In a 100 years, people might look at some of Obama's statements on gay marriage and call him an unenlighted homophobe. But today, his views aren't considered out of the mainstream. My gut feeling is that Obama has no problem with gay marriage, but has taken a position against it out of political expediency.
gm wrote:It's hilarious to me that the left is so obsessed with Limbaugh. I think you lefties have a crush on the man, you talk about him so much.
Personally, I'm not obsessed with the man, but as a leftist, nothing would give me greater pleasure than for Limbaugh and Dick Cheney to become the faces of the Republican party for the next 20 years. I believe the Obama administration is thrilled to have Limbaugh and Cheney running off at the mouth the way they have been lately, and love it when Republican politicians have to do an about face and apologize to Limbaugh for criticizing him.
I brought him up as an example, probably not a good one, of someone who wrote history to be more kindly. Also as a case where he is remembered for more than one event. In some he is a hero in other definitely not. History is always more complex than public perception. I see no evidence that the complexity gets lost over time. If anything their contributions get more complex as historians dig deeper. In other words presidents will never be a gallup statistic alone.
SQUACKEE wrote:And all these heroic dead presidents lived in a time when women were not allowed to vote! Bunch of sexist pigs!
If our only heroes are those which are perfect we will have no heroes. We have to allow for context.
We're all the product of our environment and our life experiences. It takes a very rare individual to not be affected by the cultural environment that he/she grew up in.
I used to work with guy who was my parent's age and we got along great. He was well read, higly educated and an interesting person to talk too. Every now and then, I would detect a hint of bigotry in comments that he might make on the social issues of the day, though I never heard him use any racial slur to describe any ethnic group. I also noticed that on one occasion, he got visibly rattled when I made some disparaging comment about the KKK and even made a ridiculous attempt to explain to me why the KKK was once necessary. Well, it turns out that he was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama in 1939. He described his family as working class and very poor, and what some people might call "White trash" (his words, not mine). And it also turns out that his grandfather, who raised him, and his uncle were in the KKK. He also told me once that he still considered himself a racist. Though I and other Blacks were put off by the occasional off-color comment he would make, considering his background, the consensus among us that it was a amazing that he had been able become as enlightened as he was.
Finally, I must admit that by today's standards, there's no doubt that I would have been considered a homophobe 25-30 years ago.
Uh oh - Hitler reference. Death of thread imminent . . .
I don't think so, bh.
Hitler isnt a polarizing figure in here (at least I hope not ).
It is a long-standing observation around here that whenever someone brings up Hitler in defense of their point of view, the discussion has outlived its shelf life.
Last edited by bad hammy on Thu May 14, 2009 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
When was Hitler President of the U.S.? I was talking bout U.S prezies and womans right to vote and you went Hitler on me?!
Hitler wasn't a US president, but the context you speak of is related to eras, history and heroes.
No?
Someone else mentioned Churchill.
Does context always excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
I think you have to look at each Leader as a seperate case. You cant lump Hitler with Lincoln. Its quite complicated. Im my opinion there is NO excuse for what Churchill said about killing innocent people is ok because the killers were more advanced. Horrible! But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does Churchill's statement negate everything he did? Thats up to everyone to decide.
I'm saying , do we want to say that every single leader who ever lived is to be throw into a hole and covered up because they weren't perfect. We could do it with every President we have had and every world leader who ever lived.
I brought him up as an example, probably not a good one, of someone who wrote history to be more kindly. Also as a case where he is remembered for more than one event. In some he is a hero in other definitely not. History is always more complex than public perception. I see no evidence that the complexity gets lost over time. If anything their contributions get more complex as historians dig deeper. In other words presidents will never be a gallup statistic alone.
Don't you believe the complexity of truth gets lost over time for the average person?
I mean most folk know that Lincoln freed the slaves, for example, but many don't understand or even care about all the dynamics involved.
Let me ask you, Daisy...
Does (historical) context excuse negative actions...even for a president?
When was Hitler President of the U.S.? I was talking bout U.S prezies and womans right to vote and you went Hitler on me?!
Hitler wasn't a US president, but the context you speak of is related to eras, history and heroes.
No?
Someone else mentioned Churchill.
Does context always excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
The difference between Lincoln and Hitler is that Lincoln was probably just a typical product of his environment when it came to racism, while Hitler was instrumental in creating an environment of intense racism that didn't exist before he came to power. I don't think Lincoln made the U.S. more racist while Hitler definitely made Germany more racist.
Uh oh - Hitler reference. Death of thread imminent . . .
I don't think so, bh.
Hitler isnt a polarizing figure in here (at least I hope not ).
It is a long-standing observation around here that whenever someone brings up Hitler in defense of their point of view, the discussion has outlived its shelf life.
Not exactly; i believe we've cited Somebody's Law Of The Internet, which says that a thread is over as soon as Hitler is raised. There's a lot of truth to it, but I don't think it's had a fair test here, because so many people are aware of the "law" that they purposely break it, and others reaize it, and purposely keep on going!
Uh oh - Hitler reference. Death of thread imminent . . .
I don't think so, bh.
Hitler isnt a polarizing figure in here (at least I hope not ).
It is a long-standing observation around here that whenever someone brings up Hitler in defense of their point of view, the discussion has outlived its shelf life.
When was Hitler President of the U.S.? I was talking bout U.S prezies and womans right to vote and you went Hitler on me?!
Hitler wasn't a US president, but the context you speak of is related to eras, history and heroes.
No?
Someone else mentioned Churchill.
Does context always excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
I think you have to look at each Leader as a seperate case. You cant lump Hitler with Lincoln. Its quite complicated. Im my opinion there is NO excuse for what Churchill said about killing innocent people is ok because the killers were more advanced. Horrible! But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does Churchill's statement negate everything he did? Thats up to everyone to decide.
I'm saying , do we want to say that every single leader who ever lived is to be throw into a hole and covered up because they weren't perfect. We could do it with every President we have had and every world leader who ever lived.
I see your point Squackee and to a great extent I agree.
But for some actions (genocide, holocaust, etc) no contextual exception is allowed.
When was Hitler President of the U.S.? I was talking bout U.S prezies and womans right to vote and you went Hitler on me?!
Hitler wasn't a US president, but the context you speak of is related to eras, history and heroes.
No?
Someone else mentioned Churchill.
Does context always excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
The difference between Lincoln and Hitler is that Lincoln was probably just a typical product of his environment when it came to racism, while Hitler was instrumental in creating an environment of intense racism that didn't exist before he came to power. I don't think Lincoln made the U.S. more racist while Hitler definitely made Germany more racist.
In the same context (human rights, et al)...
What's the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Hitler?
Last edited by TrackDaddy on Thu May 14, 2009 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
When was Hitler President of the U.S.? I was talking bout U.S prezies and womans right to vote and you went Hitler on me?!
Hitler wasn't a US president, but the context you speak of is related to eras, history and heroes.
No?
Someone else mentioned Churchill.
Does context always excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
I think you have to look at each Leader as a seperate case. You cant lump Hitler with Lincoln. Its quite complicated. Im my opinion there is NO excuse for what Churchill said about killing innocent people is ok because the killers were more advanced. Horrible! But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does Churchill's statement negate everything he did? Thats up to everyone to decide.
I'm saying , do we want to say that every single leader who ever lived is to be throw into a hole and covered up because they weren't perfect. We could do it with every President we have had and every world leader who ever lived.
I see your point Squackee and to a great extent I agree.
But for some actions (genocide, holocaust, etc) no contextual exception is allowed.
TrackDaddy wrote:Don't you believe the complexity of truth gets lost over time for the average person?
I mean most folk know that Lincoln freed the slaves, for example, but many don't understand or even care about all the dynamics involved.
These guys are often in the news from a historical perspective.........ah, hang on,,, no one watches or reads news anymore.
Maybe marlow is right, the new world order is upon us. The best movies gross the most and the best TV shows are the most gross and our current crop of educators are just gross
TrackDaddy wrote:Let me ask you, Daisy... Does (historical) context excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
I'm not sure history is best as judge. It should be about reflection. So yes context is always important, but it is not a court of law.
When was Hitler President of the U.S.? I was talking bout U.S prezies and womans right to vote and you went Hitler on me?!
Hitler wasn't a US president, but the context you speak of is related to eras, history and heroes.
No?
Someone else mentioned Churchill.
Does context always excuse negative actions...even for a president?
If not, when not?
The difference between Lincoln and Hitler is that Lincoln was probably just a typical product of his environment when it came to racism, while Hitler was instrumental in creating an environment of intense racism that didn't exist before he came to power. I don't think Lincoln made the U.S. more racist while Hitler definitely made Germany more racist.
In same context (human rights. et al)...
What's the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Hitler?
Hitler is responsible for like a 100 million dead, thats one differance.
Let me be clear, TD. I judge folks who are a product of their envirnment differently than I judge folks who create an environment. Jefferson was born in 1743, more than a hundred years after slavery was introduced to the colonies and almost a hundred years after courts started to make distinctions among people based on their skin color. However, Adolph Hitler himself was responsible for "The Final Solution":
Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!
