Matrix Games Forums

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".

Who else would this apply to? Napoleon, Yasser Arafat, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin? Should we tear down Jefferson's house because he was a slave owner. Evil does not run around wearing capes with sharpened teeth. Often its beginnings are quite ordinary and it is important to understand that.

To the question of why shouldn't we evaluate the past by today's standards: if that's legitimate, then it will be legitimate to measure our morality today by the morality of hundreds of years in the future.

I have a secretary. She works about 35 hours a week and can take off as much time for sick days as she needs; she has two weeks paid vacation, but she can take many more; I frequently tell her to clock out and head home when things are slow, like yesterday, when she left at 1 p.m. She is a good friend of mine and my entire family. She isn't paid a great amount, but she's willing to work for what she's paid. By my standards today (and by most anybody's standard), I'm treating her fairly.

So what if, 200 years from now, having employing is deemed a form of slavery? Or what if giving somebody less than 25 weeks paid vacation a year is deemed evil? (I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I think the point is pretty obvious.) Can I fairly be judged as a man by 2216 morality by what I'm doing today? I don't think so.

But notice that there are certain universally (or essentially universal) standards that if I violated them I'd be "wrong" or "evil" or "immoral" by today's standards and most likely by those of 2216 - if I murdered somebody; raped somebody; stole from somebody.

These universally held standards are known as "natural law." The philosophy of a natural law was still studied when I was in law school in the 1980s. I assume it still is today. "Natural law" isn't necessarily set in stone. It can be flexible, as homosexuality and abortion might be examples. Others would argue that man does not have the "right" to modify natural law - that it is indeed fixed. But that's a philosophical issue beyond the scope of what we're discussing and would not doubt erupt in controversy and acrimony and a shut-down of this thread.

But perhaps you can see why it is an injustice to history to measure the man (or woman) of 1780 (or 1535 or 1862) by 2016 morality.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

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.

Instead of claiming straw man, why not explain why the point you disagree with is not valid?

One more to ponder: should the statues of Jimmy Saville not have been taken down?

ORIGINAL: RichG

One more to ponder: should the statues of Jimmy Saville not have been taken down?

warspite1

Why would this be considered here? and why would there be any doubt or discussion required?

This thread is about historical figures and their actions in times when what was considered acceptable or normal were different to today.

The man you mention was a sick, evil disgusting excuse for a human being who preyed on the sick, the vulnerable and children - his crimes have become known post his recent death but it appears many knew - and turned a blind eye - at the height of his fame.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The man you mention was a sick, evil disgusting excuse for a human being who preyed on the sick, the vulnerable and children - his crimes have become known post his recent death but it appears many knew - and turned a blind eye - at the height of his fame.

You could (rightly) say much the same for Hitler.

And the vast majority of people in Hitlers day would not have seen his actions as acceptable.

ORIGINAL: RichG

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The man you mention was a sick, evil disgusting excuse for a human being who preyed on the sick, the vulnerable and children - his crimes have become known post his recent death but it appears many knew - and turned a blind eye - at the height of his fame.

You could (rightly) say much the same for Hitler.

And the vast majority of people in Hitlers day would not have seen his actions as acceptable.

warspite1

I don't understand your point here at all, sorry. I called Saville a sick, evil disgusting excuse for a human being. Where have I implied that Hitler was not? The fact that the majority of people would not have found his actions acceptable is not disputed.

Sorry I really don't understand.

On the political correctness front: With Halloween coming up, here is a very topical article (I remember reading about this sort of thing happening last year as well):

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -costumes/

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I don't understand your point here at all, sorry. I called Saville a sick, evil disgusting excuse for a human being. Where have I implied that Hitler was not? The fact that the majority of people would not have found his actions acceptable is not disputed.

Sorry I really don't understand.

Sorry, I'm not meaning to imply that you thought other wise about Hitler.

I guess I was trying to raise the issue of how we judge somebodies actions and whether the passing of time should really be a consideration.

In his day, Savile was considered worthy enough by some (not me by the way) to be honoured and recognised for his (for want of a better term) contributions to society by having a statue and other commemorations put up. If his crimes had not been revealed on his death, these would have remained and Savile would have become a 'historical' figure (maybe not to anything like the degree of others we are talking about, but that is beside the point). What if in 50 years time it was only then found that he was the sick individual that he was? I am pretty sure the monuments would be removed - I'd certainly hope so. The people of the day would still be making a moral judgement.

Although the deeds of some that are being discussed here are not in anyway comparable to Savile, I find it hard to think that they can still be considered some how less because of the culture of the day. Slavery might have been OK for many of those in the immediate society around the slavers, but I can't imagine the slaves ever thought it acceptable or indeed the majority of people outside of that society.

History does not in any way lessen the wrong.

Saville was a criminal. Pure and simple. His deeds were morally, legally and every which way disgusting. Had he been tried I trust they would have thrown away the key....

The difference with Britons involved in the slave trade for example, were that they were not criminals - at least not until the laws were appropriately changed. Yes by the standards of today they are criminals - but not then. And that is the issue.

By the way there was a superb documentary on the slave trade last year - I will see if I can dig out a link and post it. On the basis of that documentary, the numbers 'involved' in the slave trade were considerably more than we would otherwise imagine.

Edit: Sadly it is not available on the BBC at the moment and there are no plans to show it. Which is a real shame because it was really eye-opening. Essentially, part of the story told of how, when slavery was abolished, the British Government bailed out (to the tune of something like £20bn in todays money) the slave owners! The historian is David Olusoga - I urge anyone to watch it if you get the chance.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
...
By the way there was a superb documentary on the slave trade last year - I will see if I can dig out a link and post it. On the basis of that documentary, the numbers 'involved' in the slave trade were considerably more than we would otherwise imagine.

That is something I'd be interested in seeing.

I live close to the city of Bristol which, as you may well know, had a strong connection with the slave trade and this was the key to much of its historic wealth.

There has been much discussion locally about how Bristol should approach this. For instance, the Colston Hall is often suggested for having it's name changed. I'm not sure about this myself. Like others have said we can use history to educate. By removing the links we can miss the opportunity to inform the future generations as to what made things wrong in the past.

The idea of replacing Hitlers house with a Holocaust museum hits the mark very well.

ORIGINAL: RichG

ORIGINAL: warspite1
...
By the way there was a superb documentary on the slave trade last year - I will see if I can dig out a link and post it. On the basis of that documentary, the numbers 'involved' in the slave trade were considerably more than we would otherwise imagine.

That is something I'd be interested in seeing.

I live close to the city of Bristol which, as you may well know, had a strong connection with the slave trade and this was the key to much of its historic wealth.

There has been much discussion locally about how Bristol should approach this. For instance, the Colston Hall is often suggested for having it's name changed. I'm not sure about this myself. Like others have said we can use history to educate. By removing the links we can miss the opportunity to inform the future generations as to what made things wrong in the past.

The idea of replacing Hitlers house with a Holocaust museum hits the mark very well.

warspite1

Reading about Colston Hall just makes me so angry. Here is a perfect example of why this is not an easy subject - and that life is not just black and white - no pun intended.

Yes Edward Colston was linked to the slave trade - but he also founded a school to educate the poor. He died in 1721. Times were different. Nowadays there is no excuse for discrimination but how many people had even seen a black man back then? Any dislike of black people was likely to be out of ignorance, or fear, or what they were told by their elders and betters - even the church.

ORIGINAL: 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

Many people were aware of the injustice of slavery even in the 1780s.

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” 1 and a “hideous blot,”2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

https://www.monticello.org/site/plantat ... nd-slavery

Yet Jefferson owned slaves. That sounds to me like a “character flaw.” It might not have been a serious character flaw in the day. But it was one of the “worts” I was talking about.

How do we decide if a object is to be destroyed or saved for future generations?

- Does a majority in a country have the right to decide?
- Does the world have anything to say about it?
- Or is it a vocal minority who makes the call?

ORIGINAL: z1812

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".

Should we tear down Jefferson's house because he was a slave owner.

No, but on the other hand I think it would be mistaken to think of him as some pristine, perfect person whom we cannot possibly question (don't mean to imply that you think of him this way but there are some who seem to). Like most of us, he had his flaws.

Re slavery, why only white men vilified?

Re morality, good v evil, etc. Why the same crowd vigorously chasing slave owners, fascists, etc, but not communists and especially not abortionists?

hit quote instead of edit.

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Re slavery, why only white men vilified?

Re morality, good v evil, etc. Why the same crowd vigorously chasing slave owners, fascists, etc, but not communists and especially not abortionists?

Not sure why. I guess many of us in the 21st Century have our flaws too.

edit: To be fair, though, it should probably be noted that there are those who "chase fascists" who also disapprove of various regimes that have called themselves "communist".

Come on people, let's keep it civil...or it will be locked up. This has been a great and civil discussion so far! [:)]

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Re slavery, why only white men vilified?

warspite1

And this plays nicely to my earlier question - who decides? Uncomfortable truths face us all from time to time. It is a very uncomfortable truth that African and Asians assisted the white man pursue his policy of slavery...... plus of course it is not only white people that have adopted slavery either.