Current Events > Is it unfair to judge historical figures by today's moral standards?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Context is key.

We have known for thousands of years that slavery is bad (does the name Moses ring any bells?). And just because everyone does it, or it's "the norm" doesn't make it automatically right.
---

Was Barack Obama born the same natural kind and kindred?

It's only reasonable to judge actions by our current moral framework. It is that very development of changing our thinking from one way to another way, that makes it necessary for us to judge past actions through modern morals. To refuse to do so is to refuse to legitimize our society's current conception of right and wrong.

All US Presidents were born the same natural kind and kindred except Obama. US citizens and immigrants were the same natural kind and kindred until Reconstruction after the Civil War.

It appears Congress denaturalized the country.

008Zulu posted...

Context is key.

We have known for thousands of years that slavery is bad (does the name Moses ring any bells?). And just because everyone does it, or it's "the norm" doesn't make it automatically right.

people know this. there just happen to be benefits from generations of playing dumb and downplaying events. anything to avoid feeling shame for things they want to be proud of.

like how we as a nation celebrate murderers and rapist with turkey while the descendants of the direct victims are still alive and seeing people celebrate.
---

Orlando_Jordan posted...

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Nah, not really. We should have higher expectations for ourselves, tbh

But even Mahatma Gandhi, a very progressive man for his time, held racist views. I don't think any historical figure can live up to today's moral standards.

Eh, they're only views. If he owned slaves that'd be another thing but I can't really give a shit about what people do in their own heads
---

Are members of Congress the same kindred and and natural kind? But their only immigration and citizenship power is keeping USA citizens and immigrants the same natural kind and kindred.

Isnt that what Naturalization really means?

Roman Emperor Caracalla gave Roman Citizenship to everyone in the Empire. Where was his father and mother born?

What happened to the natural Romans? They eventually lost their liberty and lives.

molestation of terms
---

The term racist is being used to stifle free speech. The term Black came from Roman historian Livy...what does it mean according to Livy?

Why do some people act like it's all or nothing when judging a person's views or actions? Gandhi campaigned for peace and the freedom of the Indian people. He was also racist and slept naked with young girls to prove he had willpower.

That doesn't mean he was one of the worst people to ever exist, or one of the best. So why is it such a bad thing to point out he had negative qualities to remind people not to put him or others on a pedestal?
---

Of course it's fair, nobody is above being judged for the whole of their actions. If we can't be bothered to recount the full history of a figure, then they're not fit to be discussed at all, because piece-meal and tacks of convenience have no place in objective narratives, especially when the intention is to educate.

Indeed, the totality of a person, their absolute truths, should be paramount in the telling and retelling of any individual. Nuance and context not only permitted, but encouraged, leave no stone unturned and considered but at the same time, know when the tale is told and not attach or abridge undue credit or curse.

Raptor Jesus said it best;

"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly. The rest... is silence."
---

jborgan posted...

Why do some people act like it's all or nothing when judging a person's views or actions? Gandhi campaigned for peace and the freedom of the Indian people. He was also racist and slept naked with young girls to prove he had willpower.

That doesn't mean he was one of the worst people to ever exist, or one of the best. So why is it such a bad thing to point out he had negative qualities to remind people not to put him or others on a pedestal?

I'd love an intelligent response to this post from the people who apparently take issue with this.
---

The Federal government cannot take property unless they compensate the owners. This is in the 5th Amendment.

Article III, Louisiana Purchase Treaty states the Federal government cannot remove property in the newly acquired territory.

Did Emancipation and the 14th Amendment violate Art1 Sec8 Clause 4 in the Constitution?

"This guy fought for the right to own slaves, but it's just an outdated point of view from the time he lived in and we shouldn't let it interfere with how we view him as a beloved historical figure."

(not about any of the founding fathers of course, you know who this is referencing)
---

Yes.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

jborgan posted...

Why do some people act like it's all or nothing when judging a person's views or actions? Gandhi campaigned for peace and the freedom of the Indian people. He was also racist and slept naked with young girls to prove he had willpower.

That doesn't mean he was one of the worst people to ever exist, or one of the best. So why is it such a bad thing to point out he had negative qualities to remind people not to put him or others on a pedestal?

I'd love an intelligent response to this post from the people who apparently take issue with this.

Indians and Pakistanis are same kindred blood and natural kind. Americans are not the same natural kind and kindred blood.

Yall have no clue why the Founders used natural born in the Constitution. UnKindred means UnNatural. Kindred means Natural.

Congress illegally claimed naturalization meant denaturalization. The Founders limited Congress to keep USA citizens and immigrants the same natural kind and kindred.

hockeybub89 posted...

Muhammad and Columbus were both shit. They aren't everyone who has ever lived though.

...Right, that's what I was trying to get at.

Muhammad and Columbus were overall pretty bad even for their time. They promoted conquest, leading to countless deaths and the destruction of other cultures. People like Hitler and Stalin were obviously bad in their own time too.

What I'm complaining about are things like tearing down Gandhi statues because he had ignorant views of Africans and slept naked with his of-age relatives or denouncing Jefferson's achievements because he owned and fucked slaves.

Just imagine if people decide some day that MLK was a huge piece of shit because he plagiarized part of his doctorate dissertation and cheated on his wife multiple times.

Vertania posted...

What I'm complaining about are things like tearing down Gandhi statues because he had ignorant views of Africans and slept naked with his under-aged relatives or denouncing Jefferson's achievements because he owned and fucked slaves.

ftfy
---

Vertania posted...

What I'm complaining about are things like tearing down Gandhi statues because he had ignorant views of Africans

This is also pretty contextless. That statue was only erected 2 years ago and was instantly met with disdain because Gandhi looked at those people with disdain.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Not at all

It's important to be aware of the evils of our past that were acceptable and to never relent and bring them back

And yet you openly say you're a revolutionary communist and believe we should enact Karl Marx's desire for violence.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Vertania posted...

What I'm complaining about are things like tearing down Gandhi statues because he had ignorant views of Africans and slept naked with his under-aged relatives or denouncing Jefferson's achievements because he owned and fucked slaves.

ftfy

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ghandi-slept-grandniece-historian-tells-uk-government-1460499

To prove his self-control he often slept and bathed naked with other women including a grandniece and the wife of his grandnephew, who were both 18 when they started sleeping in the same bed as Gandhi, who was 77 years old at the time.

Vertania posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Muhammad and Columbus were both shit. They aren't everyone who has ever lived though.

...Right, that's what I was trying to get at.

Muhammad and Columbus were overall pretty bad even for their time. They promoted conquest, leading to countless deaths and the destruction of other cultures. People like Hitler and Stalin were obviously bad in their own time too.

What I'm complaining about are things like tearing down Gandhi statues because he had ignorant views of Africans and slept naked with his of-age relatives or denouncing Jefferson's achievements because he owned and fucked slaves.

Just imagine if people decide some day that MLK was a huge piece of shit because he plagiarized part of his doctorate dissertation and cheated on his wife multiple times.

Columbus, Ghandi and Mohammed are not the same natural kind and kindred. How can their kind be naturalized in the USA?

LogicWings posted...

Columbus, Ghandi and Mohammed are not the same natural kind and kindred. How can their kind be naturalized in the USA?

I'm pretty sure dead people can't be naturalized.

Vertania posted...

LogicWings posted...

Columbus, Ghandi and Mohammed are not the same natural kind and kindred. How can their kind be naturalized in the USA?

I'm pretty sure dead people can't be naturalized.

Their kind and kindred. Race.

LogicWings posted...

Their kind and kindred. Race.

Dead people can't race either.

I just know I'm gonna get shit for eating meat in like 200 years

And for not fucking a robot
---

Naturalization means the same race...denaturalization means many races. Congress only power is Naturalization.

What does Our Posterity in the Preamble mean?

LogicWings posted...

Naturalization means the same race...denaturalization means many races. Congress only power is Naturalization.

Dead people can't serve in Congress either. Jeez, dude.

Antifar posted...

It was not the norm of the time, though. There was intense opposition to slavery, even in the 18th century.

There was waaaay more support for slavery back in the 1700s. Much more than today.
---

James Madison, Federalist 14: The same kindred blood flows in the veins of American citizens . This is maintained by Naturalization.

Vertania posted...

LogicWings posted...

Naturalization means the same race...denaturalization means many races. Congress only power is Naturalization.

Dead people can't serve in Congress either. Jeez, dude.

Was Obama born the same race?

It is, just like it's wrong to bash people of faith because of what The Bible says since it was based on society back then
---

Homogeneous is born the same race, heterogeneous is born different races. A homogeneous society is what the Founders wanted. Thats why they limited Congress citizenship and Immigration power to Naturalization.

So...what happened...the Reconstruction Congress illegally claimed minorities could be Naturalized. Remember UnKindred means UnNatural.

All so called naturalization a acts since 1860s are really denaturalization acts, this is the biggest scam in history.

Wtf is going on in the background of this topic.
---

LogicWings posted...

Was Obama born the same race?

Same race? Bo Obama isn't even the same species; he's a Portuguese Water Dog.
Bad_Mojo posted...

It is, just like it's wrong to bash people of faith because of what The Bible says since it was based on society back then

No, it's still fair to bash people of faith. Religion should adapt to today's standards, not the other way around.

Read Federalist #2..John Jay...become enlightened.

All minority politicians and judges violate Art1 Sec8 Clause 4 in the Constitution.

Bad_Mojo posted...

It is, just like it's wrong to bash people of faith because of what The Bible says since it was based on society back then

Regardless of whether it's fair to judge the past by modern standards, it goes out the window when you're talking about something meant to be eternally and universally applicable.

Yearnings to be with her own natural kind Wordsworth....its what the Founders wanted...thats why they penned naturalization and natural born in the Constitution.

A President must be the Founders natural kind...

This all the more makes the character of Jesus quite incredible.

Whether you believe he never existed, was just a man or is the son of God, one thing that is easily agreed on is that what you read about him in the New Testament there is nothing bad that he did that you can criticize.
That is quite odd seeing how the morals of the past don't hold up to today...unless your are Jesus of course.

The worst anyone can say about Jesus is that he cursed a plant. I mean, lmao. And that is an ignorant criticism since he wasn't actually mad at the plant but it was an allegory for the temple.

Even Superman has things he did that don't hold up anymore.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

This all the more makes the character of Jesus quite incredible.

Whether you believe he never existed, was just a man or is the son of God, one thing that is easily agreed on is that what you read about him in the New Testament there is nothing bad that he did that you can criticize.
That is quite odd seeing how the morals of the past don't hold up to today...unless your are Jesus of course.

The worst anyone can say about Jesus is that he cursed a plant. I mean, lmao. And that is an ignorant criticism since he wasn't actually mad at the plant but it was an allegory for the temple.

Even Superman has things he did that don't hold up anymore.

I mean, he preached some pretty messed up values.

Vertania posted...

No, it's still fair to bash people of faith. Religion should adapt to today's standards, not the other way around.

I agree, that's what I mean. I don't want to hear how all Christians hate all gay people and shit like that. Things have changed for the better, but don't bash someone's faith based on opinions said faith used to have. Churches are slowly becoming more welcoming
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I mean, he preached some pretty messed up values.

Like what?
---

Briam Stoker..tells us...theres no difference between Vampires and homosexuals. Its why he penned Dracula.

Moreso, it doesnt make sense to do so.

If you're gonna judge anyone you might as well go all the way.