NationStates Jolt Archive

Given we've got a few threads about ethics and morality flying around I thought I'd go for one more.

How should we judge figures of the past, is it only fair to look at it in the context of the times. So for example leaders who owned slaves shouldn't be criticised because everyone did. And because some leaders were less evil than others of their time we should praise them.

On the other hand isn't murder still murder? Two wrongs don't make a right after all and saying that someone else was worse make certain acts any less evil...

So, have at it!

Yes it is only fair that we take into consideration the context of the time.

They should be judged against the others of their time, but also by how often their deeds matched their words. Also, they need to be judged on all of their life, not just a slice of the good bits.

A classic example. Many of those who signed that famous document saying that it is a self evident truth that all men are created equal owned slaves. The even more hypocritical released them on their death. "I want slaves to make my life easier, but I want to look like a nice guy. I'll release them when I die". Hypocritical tool.

Churchill was a great war leader, but don't forget that his arrogance and hubris was partly responsible for Gallipoli.

Perhaps we could have the death penalty for dead people.

Is it fair to judge them at all? At best, we can say "we don't like what they did, and with the benefit of hindsight, we can say we won't be doing that." I tend to be of the belief that you cannot fairly judge an action/decision unless you have been in that position yourself, and had to make that decision yourself, without the benefit of hindsight.

I think we can objectively make moral decisions about actions, viewpoints, ideas, etc. of historical figures, but I don't think we can judge them.

Oughtn't you learn from history rather than wasting time making judgements?

Oughtn't you learn from history rather than wasting time making judgements?

And how does one do that without making vaule judgements on those who have gone before us?

How can we learn the lessons of history if we do nothing to judge what there is to be learnt?

"Judge a man by two things: His words, and his deeds."

In a historical context, we have to add one other variable: His times. If a man lived in a time when slavery was considered normal, and did own one, then by the lights of his society he was doing no wrong (and also note that "Slavery" has meant different things at different times - Roman slavery was dramatically different from what was practiced in the South in 1850).

Also, always remember that our judgements will always be clouded by our knowledge of outcomes - whether or not something worked, who won a particular battle or war. Richard III would probably be viewed quite differently today, had he managed to keep his throne.

For anyone who finds this subject interesting, I strongly recommend reading The Life of Cesare Borgia (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3467), by Rafael Sabatini. Cesare Borgia is considered by many to be the most terrible person of the Italian Renaissance, and this book wonderfully examines him, judging him by the morals of his own time.

Given we've got a few threads about ethics and morality flying around I thought I'd go for one more.

How should we judge figures of the past, is it only fair to look at it in the context of the times. So for example leaders who owned slaves shouldn't be criticised because everyone did. And because some leaders were less evil than others of their time we should praise them.

On the other hand isn't murder still murder? Two wrongs don't make a right after all and saying that someone else was worse make certain acts any less evil...

So, have at it!

I very much feel that killing and eating animals is wrong, but I can hardly judge people who do it, considering it is the cultural norm of today. Yet in a thousand years, it is possible that meat eating will be considered immoral.

And how does one do that without making vaule judgements on those who have gone before us?

How can we learn the lessons of history if we do nothing to judge what there is to be learnt?

How can you learn if you're so busy judging that you refuse to acknowledge the deeds?

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

The man is of marginal interest, the deeds and impacts of them are important.

The man is of marginal interest, the deeds and impacts of them are important.

Educationally your are quite correct; but the men still, and probably always will, fascinate me.

Educationally your are quite correct; but the men still, and probably always will, fascinate me.

Well let's look at Jefferson, historically a great man. Start to look at him more closely and you get the feeling he's a capricious jerkass.

How should we judge figures of the past, is it only fair to look at it in the context of the times.

Agreed. The obvious exception of course would be people that are meant to serve as a moral example for all time - like e.g. the prophet Mohammed is for Muslims. The lives of such people do need to be judged based on the standards of today - how else can they be claimed to an example on how to live correctly ?

Well let's look at Jefferson, historically a great man. Start to look at him more closely and you get the feeling he's a capricious jerkass.

So was Napoléon; they still were incredible persons.

"Judge a man by two things: His words, and his deeds."

In a historical context, we have to add one other variable: His times. If a man lived in a time when slavery was considered normal, and did own one, then by the lights of his society he was doing no wrong (and also note that "Slavery" has meant different things at different times - Roman slavery was dramatically different from what was practiced in the South in 1850).

But you are contradicting yourself. "Judge a man by his words and deeds". I previously referred to people many consider great men as hypocrites due to their deeds not matching their words.

Their words were "all men are created equal". That highly implies slavery is wrong. They had slaves. Just because every other rich person had slaves doesn't make it right, as they have already said it is wrong. If he wants to be judged as a great person, his deeds must match his words. They knew slavery was wrong, but still had slaves. A significant character flaw.

People like Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin, etc, who put their life on the line to improve human though, they should be judged favourably.

Well let's look at Jefferson, historically a great man. Start to look at him more closely and you get the feeling he's a capricious jerkass.

Besides, what you call "capricious jerkass", I call "human".

But you are contradicting yourself. "Judge a man by his words and deeds". I previously referred to people many consider great men as hypocrites due to their deeds not matching their words.

Their words were "all men are created equal". That highly implies slavery is wrong. They had slaves. Just because every other rich person had slaves doesn't make it right, as they have already said it is wrong. If he wants to be judged as a great person, his deeds must match his words. They knew slavery was wrong, but still had slaves. A significant character flaw.

People like Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin, etc, who put their life on the line to improve human though, they should be judged favourably.

Jefferson actually drafted a DOI that included a mention on slavery. But due to great opposition from the southern states, he finally agreed to omit that part.

How can you learn if you're so busy judging that you refuse to acknowledge the deeds?

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

The man is of marginal interest, the deeds and impacts of them are important.

Ahhhh I see, so you are thinking of 'judge' meaning to decide upon critcaly, rather than 'judge' meaning to form an opinion.

You can of course judge both the merits of the man, and his actions can you not. Indeed that would seem a better line to take if the point is understanding and therefore learning from history.

To know the man is to know the reasons for the actions.

How can you heh judge one supeirior than the other?

Jefferson actually drafted a DOI that included a mention on slavery. But due to great opposition from the southern states, he finally agreed to omit that part.

Yet he still owned slaves of his own. :tongue:

Yet he still owned slaves of his own. :tongue:

That's a separate argument. Fish was arguing about the DOI. Though, I do see your point.

btw: one of my history professors has an obsession w/ Jefferson. She argued his case much better than I ever could.

People like Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin, etc, who put their life on the line to improve human though, they should be judged favourably.

Gallileo recanted, Darwin, I dunno if he ever was really threatened w/ death. Others (like Einstein) created atomic weapons etc.

Even good people have their flaws.

That's a separate argument. Fish was arguing about the DOI. Though, I do see your point.

btw: one of my history professors has an obsession w/ Jefferson. She argued his case much better than I ever could.

Jefferson was an intriguing human. There are no saints in this world, especially with the ever changing morality in effect.

Gallileo recanted, Darwin, I dunno if he ever was really threatened w/ death. Others (like Einstein) created atomic weapons etc.

Even good people have their flaws.

Einstein was always a pacifist and regretted the fact that his theory was used in development of weapons.

Einstein was always a pacifist and regretted the fact that his theory was used in development of weapons.

And how do you not know that Jefferson regretted what he did?

They should be judged against the others of their time, but also by how often their deeds matched their words. Also, they need to be judged on all of their life, not just a slice of the good bits.

A classic example. Many of those who signed that famous document saying that it is a self evident truth that all men are created equal owned slaves. The even more hypocritical released them on their death. "I want slaves to make my life easier, but I want to look like a nice guy. I'll release them when I die". Hypocritical tool.

Churchill was a great war leader, but don't forget that his arrogance and hubris was partly responsible for Gallipoli.

So freeing them eventually is worse than never freeing them at all:confused:?

How can you learn if you're so busy judging that you refuse to acknowledge the deeds?

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

The man is of marginal interest, the deeds and impacts of them are important.
For kicks.

I very much feel that killing and eating animals is wrong, but I can hardly judge people who do it, considering it is the cultural norm of today. Yet in a thousand years, it is possible that meat eating will be considered immoral.


"Judge a man by two things: His words, and his deeds."

In a historical context, we have to add one other variable: His times. If a man lived in a time when slavery was considered normal, and did own one, then by the lights of his society he was doing no wrong (and also note that "Slavery" has meant different things at different times - Roman slavery was dramatically different from what was practiced in the South in 1850).

Also, always remember that our judgements will always be clouded by our knowledge of outcomes - whether or not something worked, who won a particular battle or war. Richard III would probably be viewed quite differently today, had he managed to keep his throne.

So there is no right and wrong, just normal? Segregation was the cultural norm in the 50s, does that mean it wasn't 'wrong'. If I went to part of the world where executing people for witchcraft is the norm would I be able to criticise them, or just shrug and say it's the norm?

Yet in a thousand years, it is possible that meat eating will be considered immoral.

I very much hope not, or my grand children's great great grandchildren's diets will be very bland and tasteless.

I very much hope not, or my grand children's great great grandchildren's diets will be very bland and tasteless.

http://franklin.thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/strawberry-cheesecake.jpg

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2111624/MB5070-main_Full.jpg

http://franklin.thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/strawberry-cheesecake.jpg

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2111624/MB5070-main_Full.jpg

Have you ever dug potatoes? If you have then you must know that it kills Billions of worms every year.

Also know what would make that even better? bacon bits.

Have you ever dug potatoes? If you have then you must know that it kills Billions of worms every year.

You are comparing worms to cattle?

Also know what would make that even better? bacon bits.

Well, if it would please you, I suppose it is justified.

So there is no right and wrong, just normal? Segregation was the cultural norm in the 50s, does that mean it wasn't 'wrong'. If I went to part of the world where executing people for witchcraft is the norm would I be able to criticise them, or just shrug and say it's the norm?

'Wrong' and 'Right' are subjective, just like any other morality. If one were to ask a Priest of Huitzilopochtli from 1550, he would say that it was manifestly wrong NOT to rip the still-beating hearts of sacrifices from their chests every holy day. And he would be just as adamant about the correctness of that view as a Christian Priest is today about obeying the Bible or an Imam about the necessity of the Hajj.

If a person supported segregation in the 1950's, it doesn't mean he was a bad person; it just means he supported segregation (Which, btw, had strong support in the Black community of the time - until "separate but equal" turned out to be so much BS).

The West has come a long way in the last few centuries. It's unreasonable and silly to expect people from before 1900 to have anything like our attitudes on just about anything.

For anyone who finds this subject interesting, I strongly recommend reading The Life of Cesare Borgia (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3467), by Rafael Sabatini. Cesare Borgia is considered by many to be the most terrible person of the Italian Renaissance, and this book wonderfully examines him, judging him by the morals of his own time.
Your obsession with that man is going to lead you a very dark place, someday. I foresee the phrase "Cesare Borgia slashfic" in your future, if you do not turn from this path.
Also know what would make that even better? bacon bits.
Bacon bits make everything better. Even bacon bits are improved by the addition of more bacon.
Provided that it is actual bacon, and not that crummy Red Protein stuff.

That's a separate argument. Fish was arguing about the DOI. Though, I do see your point.
It wasn't a separate argument. Jefferson signed the DOI and had a significant part in it's writing. The DOI, by it's words, strongly implies slavery is wrong. Jefferson, by his deeds, kept slaves. Hypocrite.

In response to someone else. It is better he let the free when he died, but it reinforces his hypocrisy, as it shows that he knew slavery was wrong, but yet he kept slaves. He could have released the slaves earlier. Doing so would have been risk free as well. No-one would have persecuted him for releasing his own slaves.

It wasn't a separate argument. Jefferson signed the DOI and had a significant part in it's writing. The DOI, by it's words, strongly implies slavery is wrong. Jefferson, by his deeds, kept slaves. Hypocrite.

In response to someone else. It is better he let the free when he died, but it reinforces his hypocrisy, as it shows that he knew slavery was wrong, but yet he kept slaves. He could have released the slaves earlier. Doing so would have been risk free as well. No-one would have persecuted him for releasing his own slaves.

Actually, in the gentry class that Jefferson occupied at the time, it would have been, well he wouldn't have been persecuted, but his social standing certainly would have been affected had he done so.

And only the rough draft strongly implies that slavery is wrong. Remember that when they wrote it, they were mainly thinking of white men who owned property and no one else. Even poor whites weren't technically 'equal.'

'Wrong' and 'Right' are subjective, just like any other morality. If one were to ask a Priest of Huitzilopochtli from 1550, he would say that it was manifestly wrong NOT to rip the still-beating hearts of sacrifices from their chests every holy day. And he would be just as adamant about the correctness of that view as a Christian Priest is today about obeying the Bible or an Imam about the necessity of the Hajj.

If a person supported segregation in the 1950's, it doesn't mean he was a bad person; it just means he supported segregation (Which, btw, had strong support in the Black community of the time - until "separate but equal" turned out to be so much BS).

The West has come a long way in the last few centuries. It's unreasonable and silly to expect people from before 1900 to have anything like our attitudes on just about anything.

WTF? Please elucidate the bolded passage.

And how do you not know that Jefferson regretted what he did?

Einstein didn't do anything. He wasn't involved in producing the atomic bombs; he only happened to have contributed to the scientific theories that were behind them.

It wasn't a separate argument. Jefferson signed the DOI and had a significant part in it's writing. The DOI, by it's words, strongly implies slavery is wrong. Jefferson, by his deeds, kept slaves. Hypocrite.

In response to someone else. It is better he let the free when he died, but it reinforces his hypocrisy, as it shows that he knew slavery was wrong, but yet he kept slaves. He could have released the slaves earlier. Doing so would have been risk free as well. No-one would have persecuted him for releasing his own slaves.

Unfortunately, that's not true. One of the reasons Manumission of slaves was so tiny a number was that the pro-Slavery farmers and landholders actively pursued a social persecution of anyone who "abandoned" their slaves; that's the term used, and that's what people in slaveholding areas actually thought (as near as we can tell). Part of it was racism ("Th' poor niggah cain't take care o' hisself") and part a social construct to preserve slave numbers - especially after the US prohibited enslavement of free blacks, and Britain started to close down the Triangle Trade.

WTF? Please elucidate the bolded passage.

Sure. There was a fairly strong feeling among (some) educated black people in the 1950's that segregation of the races was good for the black race. A man named Callum Jones wrote several essays on the subject, that were printed nationwide in newspapers of the era; which was remarkable, as Callum Jones was himself black, and would not normally have gotten column inches in the media of the time.

Jones (and other writers of similar bent) felt that mixing of the races was a cause of friction and disharmony, and that Blacks were better off staying away from whites (a position later adopted by Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam, including Malcolm X before he changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and renounced racism). By their lights, "separate but equal" was a system that could and should work "allowing the Black man to work a place for himself out from under the shadow and influence of the White man"
(Callum Jones, from the essay Alone We Stand, 1952).

I wish I knew more about Jones; he doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and seems to have been deliberately forgotten by a lot of historians. I don't even know what state he lived in.

Of course, there were other voices, and it may be that the support was not as widespread as it seems; that there was a "silent majority" that rejected separation. However, if there was, they stayed silent; and silent groups, majority or minority, get nothing done and don't get into the history books.

Einstein didn't do anything. He wasn't involved in producing the atomic bombs; he only happened to have contributed to the scientific theories that were behind them.

And Jefferson, in that vein of thought, was just one of many who came up with the ideas and principles of a new government called the United States. He just gets credit for holding the pen.

A man named Callum Jones wrote several essays on the subject, that were printed nationwide in newspapers of the era; which was remarkable, as Callum Jones was himself black, and would not normally have gotten column inches in the media of the time.

Ah, so your evidence is one black writer whose prominence was due to white exploitation of his views?

(a position later adopted by Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam, including Malcolm X before he changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and renounced racism)

Apples and oranges. Legal segregation was an attempt by racist whites to maintain social and economic white supremacy. Separation of the races as advocated by black separatists was aimed at black self-determination and independence.

Most racist whites had no problem with black participation in white-dominated society, as long as they were only allowed on the margins, in subordinate positions. The legal enforcement of segregation was intended to serve this end. Black separatism, on the other hand, rejected this framework completely: that was the whole point.

And Jefferson, in that vein of thought, was just one of many who came up with the ideas and principles of a new government called the United States.

But he was without doubt committed to those principles, and those principles flatly contradicted owning slaves, which he also without doubt did.

On the other hand, the connection of Einstein's scientific work to the construction of the atomic bombs was purely incidental.

The living have no right to judge the dead, who may not speak their own defence.
Why must we judge persons at all? Can actions and words not be detached from a person? An action can be repeated, a person cannot live again. Weigh your own actions against all alternatives and not your person against another, lest you see how truly insignificant you are among the deeds of greater men.

You are comparing worms to cattle?

So you're saying that what makes one life more valid than another is... size? Complexity? Level on the food chain? Cuteness? What? What makes a cows life more valid than a worms life? What makes it okay to kill worms but not cows?

But he was without a doubt committed to those principles, and those principles flatly contradicted owning slaves, which he also without a doubt did.

On the other hand, the connection of Einstein's scientific work to the construction of the atomic bombs was purely incidental.

Ok, let's look at other 'pioneers' in science. Oberth and Von Braun. Though now they're noted for being the fathers of modern space travel, von Braun created the V-2 rocket, fully knowing what it was going to be used for.

Let's not forget that America isn't the first democracy. The Greek city-states had a slave-class, yet people like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato are held in high regard.

Though now they're noted for being the fathers of modern space travel, von Braun created the V-2 rocket, fully knowing what it was going to be used for.

So? I thought we were talking about Einstein. What do you mean to prove? Obviously there have been other hypocrites in history.

Let's not forget that America isn't the first democracy. The Greek city-states had a slave-class, yet people like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato are held in high regard.

...which doesn't mean we can't criticize them for any ideological or material support they may have given to slavery. We tend to admire them for other aspects of their activities.

(Indeed, we don't generally look to any of those three as great champions of freedom either--not like we do Jefferson.)

Edit: Also, if you're going to be a grammar Nazi, get it right. "Without doubt" is perfectly acceptable.

So? I thought we were talking about Einstein. What do you mean to prove? Obviously there have been other hypocrites in history.



...which doesn't mean we can't criticize them for any ideological or material support they may have given to slavery. We tend to admire them for other aspects of their activities.

(Indeed, we don't generally look to any of those three as great champions of freedom either--not like we do Jefferson.)

Edit: Also, if you're going to be a grammar Nazi, get it right. "Without doubt" is perfectly acceptable.

Actually, my response was about other intellects in general. I just meant, back off of Jefferson because he's not the only one. I certainly see the great philosophers as being liberators, maybe not in legal matters, but in ways of thinking. And as for moral character, instead of standing up for his beliefs, Socrates readily agreed to his sentence of death. In that case, he's also a bit of a hypocrite.

And I've never heard it used in that context, sorry. Fixing typos is simply my hobby.

Actually, my response was about other intellects in general. I just meant, back off of Jefferson because he's not the only one.

I don't think anyone's meant to suggest that he's the only one. But when we celebrate people as extraordinary, it can be important to remember that in some respects, they were not above the ordinary at all: they suffered from the same moral failures as everyone else.

And as for moral character, instead of standing up for his beliefs, Socrates readily agreed to his sentence of death.

Socrates did not agree with his sentence of death; he did, after all, defend himself. What he did was accede to his sentence of death: he refused to flee when he had the chance (at least if we accept Plato's account.) But, for Socrates, to make this refusal was precisely to stand up for his beliefs: his belief in respecting the social contract and the rule of law.

And I've never heard it used in that context, sorry. Fixing typos is simply my hobby.

Yeah, I correct people's grammatical errors, too. Maybe that's why I'm a little oversensitive to people correcting mine.

Ah, so your evidence is one black writer whose prominence was due to white exploitation of his views?

Callum Jones was the most prominent espouser of this view; he was not the only one.

If you want to look it up, you can also find that there was a groudswell against desegregation by many black conservatives in the 1960's - particularly as regards desegregated schooling (though, at least some of that would have stemmed from fear that black students would be marginalized in largely-white schools).



Apples and oranges.

Really? It's true that one was politically motivated and one was religious, but both advocated exactly the same thing - segregation of the races. (And the Nation of Islam has always been as much about politics as it has about faith anyway.)


Legal segregation was an attempt by racist whites to maintain social and economic white supremacy. Separation of the races as advocated by black separatists was aimed at black self-determination and independence.

See? You get it.

Most racist whites had no problem with black participation in white-dominated society, as long as they were only allowed on the margins, in subordinate positions. The legal enforcement of segregation was intended to serve this end. Black separatism, on the other hand, rejected this framework completely: that was the whole point.

And..? I think you've just made my point.

Callum Jones was the most prominent espouser of this view; he was not the only one.

If you want to look it up, you can also find that there was a groudswell against desegregation by many black conservatives in the 1960's - particularly as regards desegregated schooling (though, at least some of that would have stemmed from fear that black students would be marginalized in largely-white schools).

You're going to have to do a lot better to counter what I believe to be fairly extensive knowledge about U.S. segregation and the battle to overturn it. 'Cuz from what I know, what you are saying just ain't so.

Callum Jones may have been the "most prominent" espouser of his view, but that right there damns the view with faint praise. I can find literally nothing about Callum Jones or his essays after extensive looking (not just via Google and the internet but also via other sources including the databases of my public library). So, he wasn't very prominent -- which is what I thought.

You've also made clear you don't understand some rather important distinctions between support racial separation and the U.S. system of segregation.

The vast majority of the Black community was strongly opposed to the U.S. system of segregation -- regardless of what a few separatists may have thought.


Really? It's true that one was politically motivated and one was religious, but both advocated exactly the same thing - segregation of the races. (And the Nation of Islam has always been as much about politics as it has about faith anyway.)

See? You get it.

And..? I think you've just made my point.


As explained by Malcolm X, himself:

Segregation is that which is forced upon inferiors by superiors. Separation is done voluntarily by two equals... The Negro schools in the Negro community are controlled by whites,... the economy of the Negro community is controlled by whites. And since the Negro... community is controlled or regulated by outsiders, it is a segregated community...Muslims who follow the Honorable Elijah Muhammad are as much against segregation as we are against integration. We are against segregation because it is unjust and we are against integration because [it is] a false solution to a real problem. link (http://www.gilscottheron.com/malxquotes.htm)

see also here (http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai3/segregation/text1/text1read.htm)

Jefferson was an intriguing human. There are no saints in this world, especially with the ever changing morality in effect.

Indeed. There are just people, all of whom, are, of course, only human.

You're going to have to do a lot better to counter what I believe to be fairly extensive knowledge about U.S. segregation and the battle to overturn it. 'Cuz from what I know, what you are saying just ain't so.

Callum Jones may have been the "most prominent" espouser of his view, but that right there damns the view with faint praise. I can find literally nothing about Callum Jones or his essays after extensive looking (not just via Google and the internet but also via other sources including the databases of my public library). So, he wasn't very prominent -- which is what I thought.

You've also made clear you don't understand some rather important distinctions between support racial separation and the U.S. system of segregation.

The vast majority of the Black community was strongly opposed to the U.S. system of segregation -- regardless of what a few separatists may have thought.




As explained by Malcolm X, himself:

Segregation is that which is forced upon inferiors by superiors. Separation is done voluntarily by two equals... The Negro schools in the Negro community are controlled by whites,... the economy of the Negro community is controlled by whites. And since the Negro... community is controlled or regulated by outsiders, it is a segregated community...Muslims who follow the Honorable Elijah Muhammad are as much against segregation as we are against integration. We are against segregation because it is unjust and we are against integration because [it is] a false solution to a real problem. link (http://www.gilscottheron.com/malxquotes.htm)

see also here (http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai3/segregation/text1/text1read.htm)

Ah, Cat-Tribe, we're not actually arguing here.

Whether you call it separation or segregation, you're talking about, when you get right down to it, two groups divided. Motivation may well be different, but the objective is not.

So, both sides wanted to be in charge. That's not a surprise, that's human nature. Everybody wants to be in charge.

So, we have found that we both agree that there was a strong movement towards separation of the races in the 1950s in the black community. Which is all I claimed in the first place.

Perhaps we could have the death penalty for dead people.

That'd learn 'em.

So for example leaders who owned slaves shouldn't be criticised because everyone did. If you are speaking of the first generation of US politicians, then you are wrong. There were indeed people at that time who had the opportunity to own slaves, but did not for moral reasons.

I don't think anyone's meant to suggest that he's the only one. But when we celebrate people as extraordinary, it can be important to remember that in some respects, they were not above the ordinary at all: they suffered from the same moral failures as everyone else.



Socrates did not agree with his sentence of death; he did, after all, defend himself. What he did was accede to his sentence of death: he refused to flee when he had the chance (at least if we accept Plato's account.) But, for Socrates, to make this refusal was precisely to stand up for his beliefs: his belief in respecting the social contract and the rule of law.



Yeah, I correct people's grammatical errors, too. Maybe that's why I'm a little oversensitive to people correcting mine.


Well, I was mainly replying to someone else, who seemed to be on the tract that Jefferson was one of the biggest hypocrites in history; in which case he is not.

And I didn't say Socrates agreed with what he was charged with, only that when he was sentenced to death, he agreed with the State.


Oh, and I'm glad I'm not the only human Spell-check in existance, hehe. ^___^

Ah, Cat-Tribe, we're not actually arguing here.

Whether you call it separation or segregation, you're talking about, when you get right down to it, two groups divided. Motivation may well be different, but the objective is not.

So, both sides wanted to be in charge. That's not a surprise, that's human nature. Everybody wants to be in charge.

So, we have found that we both agree that there was a strong movement towards separation of the races in the 1950s in the black community. Which is all I claimed in the first place.

We ARE arguging here. But you inability to recognize the huge substantive difference between supporting U.S. segregation laws and supporting the concept of black separatism seems to make your contribution moot.

No do we agree that there was a "strong movement" towards separation of the races in the 1950s in the black community. From time to time throughout the history of blacks in the United States there have been separatists movements of various stripes, but none that claimed a majority of black opinion.

In the 1950s, blacks in huge numbers were putting their lives on the line to combat segregation. It wasn't some "silent majority" that opposed segregation. It was a very vocal majority.

We ARE arguging here. But you inability to recognize the huge substantive difference between supporting U.S. segregation laws and supporting the concept of black separatism seems to make your contribution moot.

No do we agree that there was a "strong movement" towards separation of the races in the 1950s in the black community. From time to time throughout the history of blacks in the United States there have been separatists movements of various stripes, but none that claimed a majority of black opinion.

In the 1950s, blacks in huge numbers were putting their lives on the line to combat segregation. It wasn't some "silent majority" that opposed segregation. It was a very vocal majority.

Now, you're going to have to show some evidence to support that one, C-T. While I agree there were those who were writing and pontificating against segregation in the 1950's (including my personal hero, Paul Robeson) and a strong push AGAINST segregation, talk of a "vocal majority" is going to need more than just a statement.

From my understanding of the subject, one of the major problems for the varous campaigns for civil rights in the 1950's was a lack of Black participation, especially in the South, a problem not overcome until the 1960's.

Given we've got a few threads about ethics and morality flying around I thought I'd go for one more.

How should we judge figures of the past, is it only fair to look at it in the context of the times. So for example leaders who owned slaves shouldn't be criticised because everyone did. And because some leaders were less evil than others of their time we should praise them.

On the other hand isn't murder still murder? Two wrongs don't make a right after all and saying that someone else was worse make certain acts any less evil...

So, have at it!

As a historian myself, I'm telling you now... The study of history has to be objective. Whatever your personal feelings are about a matter should be left out of it completely. If you put emotions/opinions or overly nationalistic dogma into history, you tend to come out with high school history books (which, more often than not, are hardly credible). Quite frankly, the only opinions historians are interested in (and what we often debate over) is an educated opinion dealing with what happened, why it happened, and why it was important.

The important thing to remember is that people do not change. Everyone is at least a little hypocritical. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, supported the destruction of the slave trade, yet he owned many slaves himself. Despite that, it is very sophomoric to say that all his ideas are invalid simply because of that.

That's all I'll say, I don't feel like giving another lecture on the art of historiography... I just gave a lecture on that very thing this morning.

As a historian myself, I'm telling you now... The study of history has to be objective. Whatever your personal feelings are about a matter should be left out of it completely. If you put emotions/opinions or overly nationalistic dogma into history, you tend to come out with high school history books (which, more often than not, are hardly credible). Quite frankly, the only opinions historians are interested in (and what we often debate over) is an educated opinion dealing with what happened, why it happened, and why it was important.

Pfsh. By and large history (and historians) has been propaganda weapons for as long as it's been around. More recently (relatively speaking) there's been a move towards greater objectivity but many historians still use history as a justification for political points of view. And even aside from those who are fairly obviously political, practically every history book you pick up makes assumptions and attempts to draw conclusions that are inherently subjective. The idea that historians don't bring their personal emotions/opinions into their judgements is naive, they all make judgements based on limited facts and these judgements are inevitably coloured by their background.


The important thing to remember is that people do not change. Everyone is at least a little hypocritical. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, supported the destruction of the slave trade, yet he owned many slaves himself. Despite that, it is very sophomoric to say that all his ideas are invalid simply because of that.

What he did does not invalidate his ideas per se, but if you were studying the man himself then it would colour your judgement of him.

'Wrong' and 'Right' are subjective, just like any other morality. If one were to ask a Priest of Huitzilopochtli from 1550, he would say that it was manifestly wrong NOT to rip the still-beating hearts of sacrifices from their chests every holy day. And he would be just as adamant about the correctness of that view as a Christian Priest is today about obeying the Bible or an Imam about the necessity of the Hajj.

If a person supported segregation in the 1950's, it doesn't mean he was a bad person; it just means he supported segregation (Which, btw, had strong support in the Black community of the time - until "separate but equal" turned out to be so much BS).

The West has come a long way in the last few centuries. It's unreasonable and silly to expect people from before 1900 to have anything like our attitudes on just about anything.

Just because something is widely practiced does not mean it is right.

I think their needs to be a distinction between evil actions and evil people. If some one's actions cause incredible harm and suffering, but is brought up, indoctrinated, to believe that their actions are right according to their society's values, them I'm cautious to denounce that person as evil. If we always did, we would be left with the conclusion that aproximately every person in history was evil. However, I can still beleive that an individual's actions were evil while beleiving that they themselves were mearly misguided but well intentioned.

Nonetheless, I'm hesitant to use always cultural background as an excuse. Because for every society, their have been some of have stood up, said their society was wrong, and gone down a different path. Thus, cultural background is not a blank check which eliminates all personal responsibillity.

Now, you're going to have to show some evidence to support that one, C-T. While I agree there were those who were writing and pontificating against segregation in the 1950's (including my personal hero, Paul Robeson) and a strong push AGAINST segregation, talk of a "vocal majority" is going to need more than just a statement.

From my understanding of the subject, one of the major problems for the varous campaigns for civil rights in the 1950's was a lack of Black participation, especially in the South, a problem not overcome until the 1960's.

:rolleyes:

Are your familiar with the The Montgomery Bus Boycott (http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/article_overview.htm), 1955-1958?

I'm not really prepared to teach basic U.S. history off the top of my head. Here are some sources you could read:
http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhome.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_2/segregation_in_the_united_states.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html


At least you appear to no longer be claiming the majority of the Black community in the 1950s was in support of segregation.

'Wrong' and 'Right' are subjective, just like any other morality. If one were to ask a Priest of Huitzilopochtli from 1550, he would say that it was manifestly wrong NOT to rip the still-beating hearts of sacrifices from their chests every holy day. And he would be just as adamant about the correctness of that view as a Christian Priest is today about obeying the Bible or an Imam about the necessity of the Hajj.
I'm not sure what people consider to be moral actually determines morality. Heart-ripping cannot be simultaneously right and wrong. It isn't like ice cream flavors, or genres of music, or cultural norms, for that matter.
The West has come a long way in the last few centuries. It's unreasonable and silly to expect people from before 1900 to have anything like our attitudes on just about anything.
...as this segment itself suggests. For the West to have come a long way implies we were less good earlier.
That being said, it is silly to expect older times to have the same attitudes as we do, just as it would be silly to expect Aristotle to know the Standard Model. That doesn't mean Aristotle's concept of four elements was right, though.

I'm not sure what people consider to be moral actually determines morality. Heart-ripping cannot be simultaneously right and wrong. It isn't like ice cream flavors, or genres of music, or cultural norms, for that matter.

...as this segment itself suggests. For the West to have come a long way implies we were less good earlier.
That being said, it is silly to expect older times to have the same attitudes as we do, just as it would be silly to expect Aristotle to know the Standard Model. That doesn't mean Aristotle's concept of four elements was right, though.

True, but while physical properties and laws don't change, people's attitudes do. And ultimately, all morality is is attitude.

:rolleyes:

Are your familiar with the The Montgomery Bus Boycott (http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/article_overview.htm), 1955-1958?

I'm not really prepared to teach basic U.S. history off the top of my head. Here are some sources you could read:
http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhome.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_2/segregation_in_the_united_states.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html


At least you appear to no longer be claiming the majority of the Black community in the 1950s was in support of segregation.

I never meant to claim that, and if you got that impression then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

What I meant was (and I stand by this) that there was a strong (read: loud) group in the black community that opposed integration and supported an explicit split between the races. This group was probably at it's strongest in the 1950's, and largely evaporated by 1970.

Thank you for the links; not news to me, but interesting reading nonetheless.

What I meant was (and I stand by this) that there was a strong (read: loud) group in the black community that opposed integration and supported an explicit split between the races.

But the only credible examples you've given are of people who explicitly rejected the white-imposed legal framework of segregation.

The original context, if you'll recall, was your questioning of whether a supporter of segregation could be deemed a bad person... which makes your equation of fundamentally different stances equivocal at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

True, but while physical properties and laws don't change, people's attitudes do.

But people's knowledge of those physical properties and laws do change.

Similarly, we could explain the shifts in moral attitudes as a progressive discovery of moral truth... or, less optimistically, as a combination of our partial knowledge of moral truth with cultural influences that may be wholly wrong about morality.

True, but while physical properties and laws don't change, people's attitudes do. And ultimately, all morality is is attitude.

I disagree with that. If morality is tied directly to attitude, the concept is either meaningless or redundant. Now, it's entirely possible there is no morality, but that's different from it being subjective.

Stalin, man or iron.

I disagree with that. If morality is tied directly to attitude, the concept is either meaningless or redundant. Now, it's entirely possible there is no morality, but that's different from it being subjective.

Why does it need to be either objective, or not existing? As you yourself pointed out, things like "tastes good" and "tastes bad" are subjective, yet taste, as a concept, does exist. Why can't "is morally good" and "is morally bad" be just as subjective, without ignoring the existing of morality as a concept?

Pfsh. By and large history (and historians) has been propaganda weapons for as long as it's been around. More recently (relatively speaking) there's been a move towards greater objectivity but many historians still use history as a justification for political points of view. And even aside from those who are fairly obviously political, practically every history book you pick up makes assumptions and attempts to draw conclusions that are inherently subjective. The idea that historians don't bring their personal emotions/opinions into their judgements is naive, they all make judgements based on limited facts and these judgements are inevitably coloured by their background.


I misspoke, I had a bit of a long day. Explaining historiography to freshmen for their first college level history papers this semester is a long and tedious to say the least.

No one is totally objective, but that's why historians have to read from many different sources to come to a conclusion. I meant to say they shouldn't but (if this came out wrong, I apologize) I didn't mean they don't. It's an annoying fact of life. Personally, I try to solve this problem by avoiding subjects that I have strong personal opinions about and, while that helps, I'm still guilty as charged just like everyone else.

But the only credible examples you've given are of people who explicitly rejected the white-imposed legal framework of segregation.

The original context, if you'll recall, was your questioning of whether a supporter of segregation could be deemed a bad person... which makes your equation of fundamentally different stances equivocal at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

On the contrary. Callum Jones and his..."clique" is suppose, for want of a better term...supported segregation, with the proviso that "separate but equal" was actually followed, an important distinction, but one different from Cat-Tribe's description of Black separatism.

Not to mention that in context, I only brought up this point in order to show that, like many views which are now controversial, the division of who was for and who was against is never as simply defined as those who want to slap simplistic labels of "morally good" and "morally bad" would like it to be.

In this case, it was literally not completely a "Black and White" issue.

But people's knowledge of those physical properties and laws do change.

Similarly, we could explain the shifts in moral attitudes as a progressive discovery of moral truth... or, less optimistically, as a combination of our partial knowledge of moral truth with cultural influences that may be wholly wrong about morality.

I believe that we have advanced morally, and that our current effective moral framework - one, basically, of permission provided one does no harm - is one that provides the maximum freedom with maximum personal responsibility, a pairing of two values I find most pleasing.

However, I am also entirely aware that my preferences in this area are entirely and totally the result of my being brought up in the modern western culture and my experiences both therin and without. As a historian, I KNOW that had I been brought up in any of a variety of other cultures, I would value OTHER charcteristics more highly - for instance, had I been born in 1869 istead of 1969, and England in stead of the USA, I would have been inculcated with the prevailing belief structure - which, by and large, held duty and obedience to authority to be more valuable than personal responsibility, with freedom, though still valued, distantly behind those.

And that's merely the difference between one century and two very closely related cultures. The simple fact is, Moral values change - and as much as we like to consider our values "superior" to all others, there's no evidence to support that view.

Stalin, man or iron.

Well I tried doing a few shirts with him and rapidly came to the conclusion he wasn't an iron.

Why does it need to be either objective, or not existing? As you yourself pointed out, things like "tastes good" and "tastes bad" are subjective, yet taste, as a concept, does exist. Why can't "is morally good" and "is morally bad" be just as subjective, without ignoring the existing of morality as a concept?

I guess it depends on how you define "morality." I'd define it as a code of conduct that helps people distinguish right from wrong. What right and wrong are is trickier, but the most common ideas seem to be:

Good is what brings the most happiness to the most people
What God(s) says is good
That complicated Kant stuff
Good is whatever makes the actor happy or more successful in the long run
Good is what makes the species more successful in the long run

Out of these five, the only one that could suggest subjectivity would be the fourth one, whatever makes the actor happy. However, even that implies there is an objective code for this, it just may be different for different people.

Stalin, man or iron.
Can't he be both? I'm pretty sure there would be a few statues of him made out of iron...

The important thing to remember is that people do not change. Everyone is at least a little hypocritical. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, supported the destruction of the slave trade, yet he owned many slaves himself. Despite that, it is very sophomoric to say that all his ideas are invalid simply because of that.

Then it must be freshmanic (sp?) to suggest someone said something they didn't. I just said he was hypocritical to say it is a self evident truth that all men were created equal, and at the same time, have slaves. Pretty simple concept. This doesn't invalidate everything else he did, but it tarnishes his image to some degree.

While someone said that releasing his slaves would have caused some problems, the difference between a good man and a great man, is that a great man is willing to suffer for his beliefs, and do what is right, no matter the cost to himself.

I guess it depends on how you define "morality." I'd define it as a code of conduct that helps people distinguish right from wrong. What right and wrong are is trickier, but the most common ideas seem to be:

Good is what brings the most happiness to the most people
What God(s) says is good
That complicated Kant stuff
Good is whatever makes the actor happy or more successful in the long run
Good is what makes the species more successful in the long run

Out of these five, the only one that could suggest subjectivity would be the fourth one, whatever makes the actor happy. However, even that implies there is an objective code for this, it just may be different for different people.

I have to point out, 2 is TOTALLY subjective, as it must first be decided which god you're talking about.

If a person supported segregation in the 1950's, it doesn't mean he was a bad person; it just means he supported segregation (Which, btw, had strong support in the Black community of the time - until "separate but equal" turned out to be so much BS).

WTF? Please elucidate the bolded passage.

Sure. There was a fairly strong feeling among (some) educated black people in the 1950's that segregation of the races was good for the black race. A man named Callum Jones wrote several essays on the subject, that were printed nationwide in newspapers of the era; which was remarkable, as Callum Jones was himself black, and would not normally have gotten column inches in the media of the time.

Jones (and other writers of similar bent) felt that mixing of the races was a cause of friction and disharmony, and that Blacks were better off staying away from whites (a position later adopted by Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam, including Malcolm X before he changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and renounced racism). By their lights, "separate but equal" was a system that could and should work "allowing the Black man to work a place for himself out from under the shadow and influence of the White man"
(Callum Jones, from the essay Alone We Stand, 1952).

I wish I knew more about Jones; he doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and seems to have been deliberately forgotten by a lot of historians. I don't even know what state he lived in.

Of course, there were other voices, and it may be that the support was not as widespread as it seems; that there was a "silent majority" that rejected separation. However, if there was, they stayed silent; and silent groups, majority or minority, get nothing done and don't get into the history books.

Ah, so your evidence is one black writer whose prominence was due to white exploitation of his views?

Apples and oranges. Legal segregation was an attempt by racist whites to maintain social and economic white supremacy. Separation of the races as advocated by black separatists was aimed at black self-determination and independence.

Most racist whites had no problem with black participation in white-dominated society, as long as they were only allowed on the margins, in subordinate positions. The legal enforcement of segregation was intended to serve this end. Black separatism, on the other hand, rejected this framework completely: that was the whole point.

Callum Jones was the most prominent espouser of this view; he was not the only one.

If you want to look it up, you can also find that there was a groudswell against desegregation by many black conservatives in the 1960's - particularly as regards desegregated schooling (though, at least some of that would have stemmed from fear that black students would be marginalized in largely-white schools).

Really? It's true that one was politically motivated and one was religious, but both advocated exactly the same thing - segregation of the races. (And the Nation of Islam has always been as much about politics as it has about faith anyway.)

You're going to have to do a lot better to counter what I believe to be fairly extensive knowledge about U.S. segregation and the battle to overturn it. 'Cuz from what I know, what you are saying just ain't so.

Callum Jones may have been the "most prominent" espouser of his view, but that right there damns the view with faint praise. I can find literally nothing about Callum Jones or his essays after extensive looking (not just via Google and the internet but also via other sources including the databases of my public library). So, he wasn't very prominent -- which is what I thought.

You've also made clear you don't understand some rather important distinctions between support racial separation and the U.S. system of segregation.

The vast majority of the Black community was strongly opposed to the U.S. system of segregation -- regardless of what a few separatists may have thought.

As explained by Malcolm X, himself:

Segregation is that which is forced upon inferiors by superiors. Separation is done voluntarily by two equals... The Negro schools in the Negro community are controlled by whites,... the economy of the Negro community is controlled by whites. And since the Negro... community is controlled or regulated by outsiders, it is a segregated community...Muslims who follow the Honorable Elijah Muhammad are as much against segregation as we are against integration. We are against segregation because it is unjust and we are against integration because [it is] a false solution to a real problem. link (http://www.gilscottheron.com/malxquotes.htm)

see also here (http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai3/segregation/text1/text1read.htm)

Ah, Cat-Tribe, we're not actually arguing here.

Whether you call it separation or segregation, you're talking about, when you get right down to it, two groups divided. Motivation may well be different, but the objective is not.

So, both sides wanted to be in charge. That's not a surprise, that's human nature. Everybody wants to be in charge.

So, we have found that we both agree that there was a strong movement towards separation of the races in the 1950s in the black community. Which is all I claimed in the first place.

We ARE arguging here. But you inability to recognize the huge substantive difference between supporting U.S. segregation laws and supporting the concept of black separatism seems to make your contribution moot.

No do we agree that there was a "strong movement" towards separation of the races in the 1950s in the black community. From time to time throughout the history of blacks in the United States there have been separatists movements of various stripes, but none that claimed a majority of black opinion.

In the 1950s, blacks in huge numbers were putting their lives on the line to combat segregation. It wasn't some "silent majority" that opposed segregation. It was a very vocal majority.

Now, you're going to have to show some evidence to support that one, C-T. While I agree there were those who were writing and pontificating against segregation in the 1950's (including my personal hero, Paul Robeson) and a strong push AGAINST segregation, talk of a "vocal majority" is going to need more than just a statement.

From my understanding of the subject, one of the major problems for the varous campaigns for civil rights in the 1950's was a lack of Black participation, especially in the South, a problem not overcome until the 1960's.

:rolleyes:

Are your familiar with the The Montgomery Bus Boycott (http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/article_overview.htm), 1955-1958?

I'm not really prepared to teach basic U.S. history off the top of my head. Here are some sources you could read:
http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhome.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_2/segregation_in_the_united_states.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html

At least you appear to no longer be claiming the majority of the Black community in the 1950s was in support of segregation.

I never meant to claim that, and if you got that impression then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

What I meant was (and I stand by this) that there was a strong (read: loud) group in the black community that opposed integration and supported an explicit split between the races. This group was probably at it's strongest in the 1950's, and largely evaporated by 1970.

Thank you for the links; not news to me, but interesting reading nonetheless.

But the only credible examples you've given are of people who explicitly rejected the white-imposed legal framework of segregation.

The original context, if you'll recall, was your questioning of whether a supporter of segregation could be deemed a bad person... which makes your equation of fundamentally different stances equivocal at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

On the contrary. Callum Jones and his..."clique" is suppose, for want of a better term...supported segregation, with the proviso that "separate but equal" was actually followed, an important distinction, but one different from Cat-Tribe's description of Black separatism.

Not to mention that in context, I only brought up this point in order to show that, like many views which are now controversial, the division of who was for and who was against is never as simply defined as those who want to slap simplistic labels of "morally good" and "morally bad" would like it to be.

In this case, it was literally not completely a "Black and White" issue.

With all due respect, Dododecapod, I quote all the above because your claims have (1) been all over the map, (2) have not been substantiated, and (3) have been rebutted.

You talk of a possible silenty majority of blacks that opposed segregation but dismiss them because "silent groups ... get nothing done and don't get into the history books." But your only solid counter-example is Callum Jones, of whom I have never heard and whose name doesn't appear in any history books that I can find (and I've been looking).

"Separate but equal" was a fiction from it's conception and was fought by strong (as you define it "loud") forces in the Black community from it's inception. (In fact, it was Black opposition to segregation that forced the Supreme Court to come up with the "separate but equal" fiction in the first place.)

As we've discussed there have been black separatist movements of various strengths (but never particularly strong and definitely never a majority) as long as there has been a black community in the U.S. But those movements are polar opposites from support for segregation. The distinction between the system of segregation and separation of the races is not just semantic, as I thought I had explained to you.

However you may wish to define your "point," consider it rejected.

Everybody else, please return to your regular programming. :p

Let's look at Bush.

Will anyone look back and judge him? Probably- people judge him now.

I have to point out, 2 is TOTALLY subjective, as it must first be decided which god you're talking about.
A definition of subjective is in order. The first one I get on the Web is from WordNet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subjective), "taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias." That seems reasonable.
This means that number 2 is not subjective, because the existence of gods do not take place only within the mind; it sort of de-godifys them. If you say Vishnu and I say Thor, it's not that their existence is subjective, but rather that one (or both) of us is wrong. (Unless we agree both exist and have their own set of morals. In that case morality is subjective, but subjective for the gods, not we mortals.)
Basically, disagreement!=subjectivity.