Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
speaking as a professional historian, lebel, let me tell you that this sentiment is just a sentiment: it has no relation to how histories are produced, what they do, etc.
|
I stand by my statement.
Certain events happened. This is not up for discussion or interpretation. What we can discuss is the meaning of certain events and how they interacted to produce subsequent events.
Even a professional historian should know that.
Quote:
so therefore slavery was fine.
sorry, my mistake: i foolishly thought that people in 2005 were in a position to evaluate actions undertaken in different contexts along lines particular to 2005.
|
Please don't be offensive when making your argument. At that time, to a large portion of the populace, slavery
was fine. There were many arguments that supported that position, arguments which we have ultimately rejected, but not without cost.
Quote:
this question of slavery, its ethical implications, its history and the effects of that history--all of this should not be addressed.
|
No, no and no. Again, I've said NONE of this. But what you just stated, has nothing IMO to do with the original article. Changing the name of Thomas Jefferson Highschool to something else is nothing short of re-writing something that was a contentious issue 200 years ago in light of what we believe today. To make such a totalistic judgement on him based on this one issue (which again, was contentious at the time) borders on a criminal disservice to the contributions he made to our history, for which he rightly deserves to be honored.
Quote:
|
what are you actually advocating, lebel?
|
I am advocating acknowledging his weakness while admiring his greatness.
Quote:
so are you saying that this exploitation was ok because lots of people indulged it?
is this how you make evaluations of what came to be the early phases of a genocide?
is this how you think about genocide in general--everything is ok if enough people go along with it?
|
This is offensive in the extreme to me, but I am used to it from you. For one thing, I am not aware of that I have excused slavery, nor am I aware of any "genocide" regarding black people in America (as opposed to a real genocide against the indians).
As I said above, slavery
was, and this isn't open to your debate. People at the time had what they thought were good and moral reasons using it, reasons we have since rejected.
While I appreciate the question, what I reject is your moral smugness (stemming I suppose from a sense of superiority) in judging the intent and character of someone who lived in a different time and different culture based on one factor.
I, on the other hand, try to look at the
whole of any individual. Did they in general do more "good" than "bad" for our world? What were their motives? What were their tools?
This is why I can look at Jefferson, who owned slaves, and still admire him, while I can look at Hitler, who unified a people and salvaged a nation, and revile him.
How you, as a "professional historian" can focus on one issue and support such revisionism is astounding.
Quote:
wait--the question involves self-loathing--genocide is carried out by other people--when the americans do it, it is manifest destiny--which is ordained by god--so therefore the repeated massacres of native americans from the 18th century through wounded knee--all ok.
|
WTF are you talking about?
I would appreciate if you would stop dragging in all your assumptions about American Right-wing conservatives when you address one of my posts.
I've NEVER said I supported "manifest destiny" or what was done to the indians. Indeed, I am fairly repulsed by it. So leave this smokescreen fluff somewhere else when arguing with me.
Quote:
no obviously not--not for you at least--because you have no interest in history--you prefer nationalist mythology. your choice, of course.
because you prefer nationalist mythology to history and its messiness, but cant really defend the position (how would you?) it follows that you would find a way to posit "your history" (of "white people"------do you really believe this?) as some kind of victim (of what?)
because confronting an often appalling history is not helpful for the mission of moral uplift that history should serve?
|
Again, I have no idea where you dig this shit up from.
I prefer "nationalist mythology"??
Please.
Leave this bs at the curb.
I prefer looking at history and people in the context of the times they lived and in what they believed. I prefer looking at the intentions of the individuals and how they held true to their beliefs. I prefer to then to look at this in the sense of how it has either furthered the human condition or degredated it before I make a final judgment.
I won't even bother with the rest of your post, as I've responded to the charges you repeat ad naseum.
(edited for tone)