Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

Straw Man is not a personal insult, I was pointing out that you were taking my statement and extending it to something I never said. It is a common debating term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I feel I have said all I wanted to here. Stepping out.

Cheers

Pip

If you read that complete Wikipedia definition, the term is definitely not complimentary. Yes, I was extending my argument. I am not sure why you would think that to be a problem.

[AbwehrX]

King Arthur: What is the greatest quality of knighthood? No poetry, just a simple answer.

Merlin: Alright then. Truth! That's it, truth. When a man lies he murders some part of world. You should know that.

Excalibur - For It Is the Doom Of Men That They Forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_SAx1kXSnk
[:D]

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

King Arthur: What is the greatest quality of knighthood? No poetry, just a simple answer.

Merlin: Alright then. Truth! That's it, truth. When a man lies he murders some part of world. You should know that.

Excalibur - For It Is the Doom Of Men That They Forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_SAx1kXSnk
[:D]

Great Scene. Nicol Williamson is the best Merlin. He delivered with a punch.

The movie Excalibur was originally going to be "The Lord of the Rings" but the deal fell through. Where Lancelot and Arthur fought was a set design to be Rivendell.

[Canoerebel]

I'm about to make a statement that's so obvious that I feel sure it has been raised in here and by every person aware of what's going on with Hitler's birthplace: Why not turn it into a museum devoted to the Holocaust or Civil Rights or some other worthy topic that's anathema to the ignorant and the hateful?

I'm in the business of telling history of my place fully and fairly. Since I live in Georgia, USA, that includes the Civil War, racism, Civil Rights, Jim Crow, lynching, the removal of the Cherokee and other American Indian people (by the way, they prefer "American Indian" to "Native American"), etc. That's complicated, delicate, and sad subject matter intermixed with acts of bravery, nobility, self-sacrifice, honor, etc. History is complicated. People are complicated. Motives are complicated. But we do a disservice to the people of the past when we avoid telling stories or when we tell the stories with bias or ignorance mixed in.

There is, as Warspite noted, a massive movement in American higher education to measure the people of the past by today's morality. In fact, if you disagree with the wisdom of doing that, you will be accused of being ignorant and a racist. Your views will be dismissed as those of a Cretan.

These people are propounding a virulent, extremist, immature viewpoint that excludes all others. In ten years, they will control all instruction in American colleges and schools, the production of history books, the formulation of news reports and mainline documentaries and movies, etc.

We are moving into a weird world.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

...

I think the key point is that the building has almost no historical significance beyond that that has been given to it by neo-nazis. Thus it's removal has no real effect on the historical record, while making it much harder for fascists to use it as an unofficial shrine.

Nobody is talking about tearing down Auschwitz.

Cheers

Pip

I think this puts the issue in an appropriate perspective.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
There is, as Warspite noted, a massive movement in American higher education to measure the people of the past by today's morality. In fact, if you disagree with the wisdom of doing that, you will be accused of being ignorant and a racist. Your views will be dismissed as those of a Cretan.

These people are propounding a virulent, extremist, immature viewpoint that excludes all others. In ten years, they will control all instruction in American colleges and schools, the production of history books, the formulation of news reports and mainline documentaries and movies, etc.

We are moving into a weird world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "measuring the past by today's morality". I suppose I can't help but measure the recent past using contemporary ideas of morality. I mean I don't look at the holocaust and say, "well they just didn't know they were doing something wrong. Therefore what they did wasn't in actuality bad." Is there a different way of viewing the recent past?

This is what it all seems to me to boil down to. From my perspective (what I see going on around me) there is a lot of backlash today because formerly marginalized groups of people (or what are now being called "protected groups") are more and more becoming enfranchised in our society. I guess the question becomes, at what point can the "training wheels" come off and those "protected groups" don't need to be "protected" anymore. And of course if things aren't going well for those who aren't "protected" then it's a bit difficult to sell the idea of protecting the worst off.

[Canoerebel]

The Holocaust was, of course, murder by the standard of the time. There you are judging 1944 actions by 1944 morality, which is consistent with 2016 morality. Murder is wrong.

What you shouldn't do is judge 1786 actions by 2016 morality, when that morality has considerably evolved over time. So, in 1786, the mistreatment of slaves was unlawful and therefore wrong. But slavery itself was lawful. Can you therefore judge the 1786 person by 2016 morality and say that he was "evil"? Not necessarily. Slavery had existed since the dawn of time, and the evolution of sentiment against slavery was only gradually evolving.

We recognize today that slavery was an evil because it gave imperfect people nearly total power over a dependent class, resulting in rampant excesses and abuses. We know that you cannot trust people to have unlimited power over others. But the man of 1785 didn't understand this yet. Better to judge him by the morality of his time than ours.

[warspite1]

I'm not sure what you mean by "measuring the past by today's morality".

When looking at the past and 'judging by today's morality' many people that have shaped our history will come off badly, very badly. Why? well quite obviously because in less enlightened times, things such as the subjugation of women was the norm, slavery was the norm, child labour was the norm, Homosexuality was a hanging offence in many countries well into the 20th century, imperial/colonial rule was the norm, divine right of kings etc etc

To put the actions of historical figures into context takes a degree of effort, human nature is complex, and it takes a mature approach to the subject to properly understand. We help children of today understand their world better by properly teaching about where we have come from - warts and all. What is the saying? How do you know where you are going if you don't know where you have come from? There are those - a growing number it seems - who take the approach that anyone who does not conform to today's standards is denounced and white-washed from history. That is wrong on every level.

I mean I don't look at the holocaust and say, "well they just didn't know they were doing something wrong. Therefore what they did wasn't in actuality bad."

Who is saying that the Holocaust is something that should be excused? The Holocaust involved the attempted extermination of every Jew in Europe. An entire people to be murdered just because of their religion - men, women and children. Who here is suggesting that a modern, educated, Christian European people in the 1940's should be excused for not realising that was bad?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The Holocaust was, of course, murder by the standard of the time. There you are judging 1944 actions by 1944 morality, which is consistent with 2016 morality. Murder is wrong.

What you shouldn't do is judge 1786 actions by 2016 morality, when that morality has considerably evolved over time. So, in 1786, the mistreatment of slaves was unlawful and therefore wrong. But slavery itself was lawful. Can you therefore judge the 1786 person by 2016 morality and say that he was "evil"? Not necessarily. Slavery had existed since the dawn of time, and the evolution of sentiment against slavery was only gradually evolving.

We recognize today that slavery was an evil because it gave imperfect people nearly total power over a dependent class, resulting in rampant excesses and abuses. We know that you cannot trust people to have unlimited power over others. But the man of 1785 didn't understand this yet. Better to judge him by the morality of his time than ours.

Why shouldn't someone judge 1786 actions by 2016 morality? What harm is done by doing so?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'm not sure what you mean by "measuring the past by today's morality".

When looking at the past and 'judging by today's morality' many people that have shaped our history will come off badly, very badly. Why? well quite obviously because in less enlightened times, things such as the subjugation of women was the norm, slavery was the norm, child labour was the norm, Homosexuality was a hanging offence in many countries well into the 20th century, imperial/colonial rule was the norm, divine right of kings etc etc

To put the actions of historical figures into context takes a degree of effort, human nature is complex, and it takes a mature approach to the subject to properly understand. We help children of today understand their world better by properly teaching about where we have come from - warts and all. What is the saying? How do you know where you are going if you don't know where you have come from? There are those - a growing number it seems - who take the approach that anyone who does not conform to today's standards is denounced and white-washed from history. That is wrong on every level.

I mean I don't look at the holocaust and say, "well they just didn't know they were doing something wrong. Therefore what they did wasn't in actuality bad."

Who is saying that the Holocaust is something that should be excused? The Holocaust involved the attempted extermination of every Jew in Europe. An entire people to be murdered just because of their religion - men, women and children. Who here is suggesting that a modern, educated, Christian European people in the 1940's should be excused for not realising that was bad?

I apologize if you mistook my example as an indication that I think someone here thinks the holocaust was excused. I was using it as a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate my point about measuring the (recent) past using current morality.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The Holocaust was, of course, murder by the standard of the time. There you are judging 1944 actions by 1944 morality, which is consistent with 2016 morality. Murder is wrong.

What you shouldn't do is judge 1786 actions by 2016 morality, when that morality has considerably evolved over time. So, in 1786, the mistreatment of slaves was unlawful and therefore wrong. But slavery itself was lawful. Can you therefore judge the 1786 person by 2016 morality and say that he was "evil"? Not necessarily. Slavery had existed since the dawn of time, and the evolution of sentiment against slavery was only gradually evolving.

We recognize today that slavery was an evil because it gave imperfect people nearly total power over a dependent class, resulting in rampant excesses and abuses. We know that you cannot trust people to have unlimited power over others. But the man of 1785 didn't understand this yet. Better to judge him by the morality of his time than ours.

Why shouldn't someone judge 1786 actions by 2016 morality? What harm is done by doing so?

warspite1

Of course we should look at things with our current values in place - it would be hard not to, and also helps us understand how far we have come. But here is the difficult bit - the bit that takes effort and understanding.

When assessing actions taken by x in 1786, we need to look deeper and to understand what his motives were? what was the world like in that time? were the actions in keeping with his contemporaries? The easy, lazy, unhelpful thing to do would be to label that person a racist/imperialist or whatever and remove him from history. It helps no one, it does not aid our understanding of the past to do so, but hey it makes these people feel righteous [8|]

As Pip suggested, maybe putting names into the conversation may help?

How about looking at a few historical characters and looking at how history should view them? Napoleon might be a good subject!

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Of course we should look at things with our current values in place - it would be hard not to, and also helps us understand how far we have come. But here is the difficult bit - the bit that takes effort and understanding.

When assessing actions taken by x in 1786, we need to look deeper and to understand what his motives were? what was the world like in that time? were the actions in keeping with his contemporaries? The easy, lazy, unhelpful thing to do would be to label that person a racist/imperialist or whatever and remove him from history. It helps no one, it does not aid our understanding of the past to do so, but hey it makes these people feel righteous [8|]

As Pip suggested, maybe putting names into the conversation may help?

How about looking at a few historical characters and looking at how history should view them? Napoleon might be a good subject!

So, on the topic of "imperialism", you don't think "imperialism" is an apt description of what was going on in many cases in the past? I mean, we can go WAY back to Rome and label them as "imperialistic" and that seems like it would be a pretty fair summary.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Of course we should look at things with our current values in place - it would be hard not to, and also helps us understand how far we have come. But here is the difficult bit - the bit that takes effort and understanding.

When assessing actions taken by x in 1786, we need to look deeper and to understand what his motives were? what was the world like in that time? were the actions in keeping with his contemporaries? The easy, lazy, unhelpful thing to do would be to label that person a racist/imperialist or whatever and remove him from history. It helps no one, it does not aid our understanding of the past to do so, but hey it makes these people feel righteous [8|]

As Pip suggested, maybe putting names into the conversation may help?

How about looking at a few historical characters and looking at how history should view them? Napoleon might be a good subject!

So, on the topic of "imperialism", you don't think "imperialism" is an apt description of what was going on in many cases in the past? I mean, we can go WAY back to Rome and label them as "imperialistic" and that seems like it would be a pretty fair summary.

Regarding historical figures, it seems to me a bit pointless to try to vindicate historical figures if they practiced things that we now consider unjust. They're long dead and not around to take offense. It sounds to me like a case could be made that the people who are "whitewashing history" could very well be the ones who want to try to vindicate the past.

warspite1

So, on the topic of "imperialism", you don't think "imperialism" is an apt description of what was going on in many cases in the past? I mean, we can go WAY back to Rome and label them as "imperialistic" and that seems like it would be a pretty fair summary.

Apologies, I am being a bit of a thicky but I don't understand what you mean by imperialism not being an apt description. Look at some of the European countries that have had empires/colonies. In no particular order: UK, France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Italy... They were quite the rage at one point and these were imperial powers [:)]

Regarding historical figures, it seems to me a bit pointless to try to vindicate historical figures if they practiced things that we now consider unjust.

I walk around London and I see a lot of statues and monuments. I am sure that is the same for every capital and important city in the world. Who are these people? Kings/Queens, Military men, Explorers, Scientists etc They are celebrated for a reason. Some for reasons to do with the country they served, while others are also celebrated around the world e.g. William Wilberforce. How many of those celebrated and immortalised in stone or bronze or whatever, were (by the standards of today) racists, imperialists, war criminals, slave owners? By the very nature of how our society developed, a good many are one or more of the above. So how should we see them now? Revision and a fresh look at things should never be bad, and in the cold light of day, some historical figures perhaps ARE best removed to the shadows (certainly in terms of monuments), but these are few and far between.

Far better to properly understand - warts and all - than white wash.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Apologies, I am being a bit of a thicky but I don't understand what you mean by imperialism not being an apt description. Look at some of the European countries that have had empires/colonies. In no particular order: UK, France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Italy... They were quite the rage at one point and these were imperial powers [:)]

Well if someone says many European nations practiced imperialism that would be a true statement, right? So it really shouldn't be historically controversial to say that. It seems to me like the uproar is often over people who say things just like that.

I walk around London and I see a lot of statues and monuments. I am sure that is the same for every capital and important city in the world. Who are these people? Kings/Queens, Military men, Explorers, Scientists etc They are celebrated for a reason. Some for reasons to do with the country they served, while others are also celebrated around the world e.g. William Wilberforce. How many of those celebrated and immortalised in stone or bronze or whatever, were (by the standards of today) racists, imperialists, war criminals, slave owners? By the very nature of how our society developed, a good many are one or more of the above. So how should we see them now? Revision and a fresh look at things should never be bad, and in the cold light of day, some historical figures perhaps ARE best removed to the shadows (certainly in terms of monuments), but these are few and far between.

Far better to properly understand - warts and all - than white wash.

But I think to understand that historical figures had their faults is to understand the warts. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. It seems to be a matter of great consternation when some point that out in history books. Some people seem to get in an uproar but that to me is to understand Jefferson, "warts and all".

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Why shouldn't someone judge 1786 actions by 2016 morality? What harm is done by doing so?

It distorts reality and puts things out of the context of their times. The best example I can think of that is occurring in our lifetimes is marijuana use. For most of my life it has been illegal and outlawed by society.

In my professional capacity as a police officer I arrested and took away peoples freedom and liberty because I was upholding the laws and values of the times of which I had sworn an oath to do. At no time in my career was it ever seen as questionable or improper, in fact is was seen as the right thing to do.

Times are changing and it is slowly becoming a legal substance, are we now going to retroactively brand anyone and everyone as evil who upheld the laws of their time and prosecuted offenders? Are we going to brand all the offenders who committed acts of violence as freedom fighters who justly fought the system and excuse the damage they did to their victims?

In my reality and my time I was doing the right thing, but in future realities I doubt that will be seen as the case if judged through the prism of their times moral compass as opposed to my times moral compass.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
But I think to understand that historical figures had their faults is to understand the warts. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. It seems to be a matter of great consternation when some point that out in history books. Some people seem to get in an uproar but that to me is to understand Jefferson, "warts and all".

The issue should not be simply that he owned slaves. In the context of his time that was not an issue. The issue for us should be did he ever question his own ownership of slaves and if so what were his thoughts on that.

Jim

[Orm]

You all have given me something to ponder on. Thank you. [:)]

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
But I think to understand that historical figures had their faults is to understand the warts. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. It seems to be a matter of great consternation when some point that out in history books. Some people seem to get in an uproar but that to me is to understand Jefferson, "warts and all".

The issue should not be simply that he owned slaves. In the context of his time that was not an issue. The issue for us should be did he ever question his own ownership of slaves and if so what were his thoughts on that.

Jim

Straw man.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Straw man.

No it's not. You stated the fact Jefferson owned slaves meant he had character flaws. The problem with that is you are imposing your reality/morality onto him and it doesn't apply to his time. In your reality you know slavery is wrong, no question about it.

For Jefferson slavery had always existed in the world and in his mind he probably assumed it always would. For the people of his time this was the case and simply imagining a world with no slavery was probably all but impossible to them, it had always existed and was an accepted part of their reality, something that you and I can't even imagine today.

So for them there was probably no moral dilemma at all, they simply accepted the world as it was and very few of them probably even questioned it. Self reflection is a very rare virtue, and when it comes to examining a subject as dark as the forced servitude of another human being, my guess is very few people ever even looked down that rabbit hole.

So to say he had character flaws is unjust, unless you have evidence he critically evaluated the issue and came to a flawed conclusion. I'm not saying he didn't have flaws, just that ownership of slaves isn't enough for his time as it wasn't an issue for them. For their reality it was a normal part of their world and thus not morally questioned the way we would question it today.

Jim

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Orm

You all have given me something to ponder on. Thank you. [:)]

Yes indeed! [:)]

[MakeeLearn]

A quick overview of a few things along this subject.

Many people have what I call "Grizzly Man Syndrome" : a disbelief in truths of reality in a pursuit of utopian ideas.
Based on the man who thought he could live with Grizzlies because he had good feelings about them. He and his girlfriend were eventually eaten by a hungry ...Grizzly.


In America native place names should be changed.
Native Americans were not peacful hippies. They lived in harmony with the natural world. The natural world is not a Disney movie. It's beautiful, but its brutal.

So the Native Americans lived in harmony with a beautiful and brutal world.

Apalache - Apalachecola - of northen Florida tormented their neighbors long before the Europeans arrived. They liked to chop people up and hang the parts in trees.


The Cheerokee "poor poor me" Trail of Tears. Yet they didn't mind taking the stuff and lands of the Creek, Choctaw and Chickasaw and helping to send them out west. Check my post in books Iam reading thread.

Crimes against humanity therefore: In America native place names should be changed.

I sense that its not really about the "House being a shrine".

Its easy to sit in a Comfy Chair of modern society and pass judgement on the past. If the electricty goes and our modern infrastructure with it, we will see better why our ancestors did what they did. Yes we are all the same.