| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12445 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: We wouldn't have any historical figures if we held them to today's moral standards. I do not think that's true. But if it is, then I don't need historical figures. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
For example, the English understood land ownership as having fences, walls, and well organized farm land that would demonstrate colonial ownership. Native Americans did not farm the same way. Their farming was much more "natural" as in it was not neat and well organized and did not have borders or boundaries. The english did not recongize this as land and thus you would have many early conflicts rising with native americans. It was not properly arigated from their point of view so they saw the land as free for the taking. Also, it is ignorant to assume that native americans were one cohesive unit. There were hundreds upon hundreds of nations with their own motives and political interests. It's the same type of ignorance when people speak as if Africa is a country. The narrative that native Americans were these weak and very peaceful people until evil europeans came and slaughtered them all is not only wrong but also disrespectful to native american history. When the english first arrived, native american tribes did not view them as a threat because there were so few englishmen and they demonstrated an inability to survive the harsh conditions of north american climate. Many native tribes sought to seek allegienace and trade with the english in order to gain advantages on enemy tribes through superior european inventions and weaponry. The point is the native americans were not this passive group that fell prey to europeans. They had their own politcal motives, but inevitably lost. Native americans were certainly not 100% innocent. There were horrible atrocities commited from both sides that i do not wish to describe here. The culture clash ultimately led to division and violence. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:39 Nebuchad wrote: I do not think that's true. But if it is, then I don't need historical figures. That's a bit cheap. The world was built up by the people who came before you, you aren't really allowed to deny their actions. You can learn from them, though. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12445 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:51 Incognoto wrote: That's a bit cheap. The world was built up by the people who came before you, you aren't really allowed to deny their actions. You can learn from them, though. I don't deny their actions. I'm just okay with being factual about them. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
Is this thread now his entire history? | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:59 Sermokala wrote: Or you can live in a world were you believe no one did anything specifically in the history of man until Obama was elected in 2008. Nah. He was against gay marriage, remember? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
Thats right I guess no one specifically has ever done anything in all of space and time. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12445 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:59 Sermokala wrote: Or you can live in a world were you believe no one did anything specifically in the history of man until Obama was elected in 2008. Is this thread now his entire history? I don't even understand how you constructed that strawman. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:24 travis wrote: Mohdoo are you trolling or have you really thought about what you are saying so little that you think it makes sense? How about actually making an argument against what I'm saying? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:15 Nebuchad wrote: I don't even understand how you constructed that strawman. If you hold everyone to today moral standards and discard them if they don't live up to those standards then you don't need them as historical figures. Ergo no one specifically did anything in the history of anything. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States998 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:39 Nebuchad wrote: I do not think that's true. But if it is, then I don't need historical figures. That is an incredibly destructive attitude. It's extremely important that we remember what happened, and who did what. Also, try naming a historical figure from beyond 300 years ago that you find to be completely acceptable by today's standards. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
Republican presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Ted Cruz vied on Thursday for the support of party leaders who view them as outsiders, and turned a national controversy over a law on transgender bathroom use into a campaign issue. Trump was asked during a NBC Today Show town hall about the North Carolina law, which was passed last month and requires transgender people to use government and school bathrooms that correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. Trump took the side of those criticizing the law, saying it was unnecessary and North Carolina was "paying a big price" because of reaction from businesses that have halted or canceled plans to expand in state unless the measured is repealed. "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate," Trump told the Today Show. Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas who is a staunch social and fiscal conservative, expressed support for the law, and said the Republican front-runner has caved to political correctness as he seeks to lock down the party nomination and broaden his appeal ahead of the November general election. "Donald Trump isn’t going to defeat political correctness. Today he bowed down to it," Cruz said on Twitter. "We shouldn't be facilitating putting little girls alone in a bathroom w/ grown men. That's just a bad, bad, bad idea," Cruz said in a separate Twitter post. Trump, Cruz spar over transgender bathroom law, delegates | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12445 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:27 Monochromatic wrote: That is an incredibly destructive attitude. It's extremely important that we remember what happened, and who did what. Also, try naming a historical figure from beyond 300 years ago that you find to be completely acceptable by today's standards. Why can't I remember what happened and who did what? | ||
|
oBlade
United States6054 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
It's actually much easier to have and teach history without venerating people. It makes it a worse fairy tale, though. As a side note I didn't know Jackson was Reagan-tier for so many people...I hope the people that love him so much would apply a similar lens when defending the prophet Muhammed's less savory actions. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:24 Mohdoo wrote: How about actually making an argument against what I'm saying? Sure. Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Who did that? I don't think anyone did. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used Well, most of the world could be conquered by the U.S. right now. Are you advocating that? Why haven't I seen you advocate for more wars in general? There's conquerable land out there! by inferior civilizations. What does this even mean? The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak. What you are describing is theft. When you go in and take something that belongs to someone else, that is theft. If I get a gun and I take your shit, its not because you are weak - it's because I was an asshole and I took your shit with my gun because I wanted it. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 21 2016 09:32 Djzapz wrote: Not really. Especially not at my uni. If it's pushed to an absurd point maybe, because it's fair to say that the term genocide didn't exist in the 1800's and the standards of morality of that time were not the same as today's. But still, we're talking about 2016 money and symbols. That being said if you get laughed out of a serious discussion about historical leadership because you say you value social progress brought forward by other actors of US history outside of government, maybe you're hanging out with old washed out people.  Except that I didn't say anything about who should be on the $20. I explicitly said I think Tubman should be on it before Jackson. What I was addressing is the fact that a lot of people have a shocking disregard for how influential Jackson was as U.S. president. You don't just hand-wave away all of that stuff because he was a racist. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:54 Stratos_speAr wrote: Except that I didn't say anything about who should be on the $20. I explicitly said I think Tubman should be on it before Jackson. What I was addressing is the fact that a lot of people have a shocking disregard for how influential Jackson was as U.S. president. You don't just hand-wave away all of that stuff because he was a racist. The issue that others in this thread have is that they can't believe a person (like Jefferson) can have done good things AND bad things, both in equal or lopsided measures, and still be considered a good person. ie "He was racist, so he is bad" or "Trail of Tears, so he is bad" I am in agreement that he is a good person to replace from the american currency. Not because he is racist, or bad, but because Tubman better represents what america is now, and what america values now. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:54 Stratos_speAr wrote: Except that I didn't say anything about who should be on the $20. I explicitly said I think Tubman should be on it before Jackson. What I was addressing is the fact that a lot of people have a shocking disregard for how influential Jackson was as U.S. president. You don't just hand-wave away all of that stuff because he was a racist. We were talking about the bill, I was justified in keeping the thing in context. Nonetheless that's all in your mind. No one "disregards" the influence of Jackson. Everyone knows he was hugely influential and did some good stuff. The more socially-minded people, when they condemn genocide and refuse to talk about whatever good shit Jackson may have done for the US, are not even close to discussing history, so bringing up the discipline of history in that context is ridiculous and even patronizing when you use the specific terms "you'd get laughed out". No one gives a shit if you'd get laughed out of a room of shit american historians while discussing the profoundly subjective and fuck, arbitrary topic, of who should be on the bill. Should it be pure influence? Plenty of shit people are very influential. Should it be civil rights, or should it be a person who defines the spirit of what it means to be an American? It's not about laughing someone out of the room. If a person believes that Jackson is no longer representative of what America stands for, then it stands to reason that he may not be at the forefront of US symbolism. Which doesn't mean that we should purge US history. For the love of fuck, it clearly means that history is history. From where I stand this topic is amazing because it truly displays the malaise that comes from discussing the goods and bads of US history. On one side the nationalism is strong and refuses to be criticized, and the understandable backlash is people say Jackson is nothing more than a genocidal maniac. I think nothing would be lost from removing the man from the bill, which may have happened already if Americans didn't have this romanced Hollywoodesque understanding of this demigod's history. Not because he's irrelevant, but because history is history. There's no sense in hating a man from the 1800's who did things that men from the 1800's did. But for fuck's sake it is not a glorious period of the US history. I think my argument is perfectly reasonable. While it's useless to judge a man for what he did in 1810 with the morality of a person from 2016 to discuss history and the power of men, I think it makes sense to bring these things into perspective when discussing who and what should symbolize the US TODAY. Now if you're dead set on using "influential" as your main standard and disregard how they raped child slaves and killed hundreds of thousands of people, be my guest. I happen to think that those people are much more interesting in a history book than they are on the stack of $20's I use to get me the latest automated Masturbator. So yes, I recognize that Jackson did good things and bad things, and I don't subscribe to the notion that Trail of tears = all bad (though let's be fucking honest, it's pretty fucking bad). If you're still fine with using THAT as a symbol of your country, then in my eye you're kinda admitting that your country is shit. There's a bunch of cool ass influential people in Canada and I'm pretty glad that like, if I had one which had the compromise "on one hand Genocide, but on the other hand he did some cool shit", I'd probably move on. The country was built and then we became who we are - and that's what our country should display now. Who we became. And so to say that Andrews was not all bad is, to my senses, an insufficient argument. That being said, I understand the sentiment, especially if what you're annoyed with is how some of these people want to rewrite history. I don't think it's what I'm doing. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:24 Mohdoo wrote: How about actually making an argument against what I'm saying? Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning arguments in the internet. Quality posters should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable forums are used by inferior posters like Mohdoo. The strong posters should sit around and wait for a different strong poster to seize the opportunity to inflate their post count. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped posters' right to be shitty and weak. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  43516Calm  6369Horang2 1932Bisu 1492Jaedong 1047firebathero  959ggaemo 381Soma 306Mini 304Larva 243[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing1714 B2W.Neo1101 Liquid`RaSZi1061 DeMusliM349 crisheroes308 Lowko294 Sick59 mouzStarbuck53 QueenE37 Trikslyr14 Organizations StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
IPSL
WolFix vs nOmaD
dxtr13 vs Razz
BSL
UltrA vs KwarK
Gosudark vs cavapoo
dxtr13 vs HBO
Doodle vs Razz
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
