Roachboy captures the general theory a lot better than i would, so i'll just tack a few responses in. He is right on with "Great Man" syndrome. Ambiguity is
the watchword of history, IMO. Not only is history greater than the activities of the Great Men, but the moral context in which they are set is anything but firm. There is no provable "March Of Progress" that justifies the mistakes and atrocities of these figures. They are responsible for their acts, and even by the standards of contemporaries, such as Bishops Toral or De Las Casas, Columbus was the original Banana Republic dictator. He was recalled for his incompetance by Spain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
So we should just all pay for the sins of our forebearers and not move on?
|
Not what i suggested. It seems that when the argument is forwarded to complicate history, the historical grand narrative progressionists are apt to claim that we are asking to halt history. I'm not sure where you get this claim. Do you expect us to beleive that it is not possible to look to the future and carefully examine the past at the same time? I believe we're all smart enough to do that, and indeed that our intellectual curiousity should drive us to this...even outside of any moral obligation i might claim.
Quote:
|
The world whether we argee politically and philosophically or not is a far better and more civilized place today than it was say 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.
|
I'm not inclined to grant you a "grand progression" of history. Famine, genocide, petty dictators, and the like are still common on this planet. Some progresses and advances have been made...indeed, many important and critical advances have been made. But this is not a case of rising tides bring up all ships.
Quote:
|
To only focus on the negatives of the past and expect some magician to all of a sudden set everything right is detrimental and will never allow us progress.
|
This is, again, not the project being suggested. Making villians of the past does not help us much, either. Careful history is not the exclusive focus on the negative, nor does it paralyze.
Quote:
|
IF you wallow in self pity and hatred of the past and demand immediate changes from society, you only turn those that wanted to help away, and those that stay are usually in it just for the power and greed.
|
I don't follow this argument at all. I do not hate myself, or my ancestors. I do believe in accountability. Many of my ancestors are responsible for serious mistakes. This does not preclude pride in my heritage, but it does complicate it.
Quote:
|
You want things changed you don't keep rehashing the past.... you stand up and say we need to learn from the mistakes and not judge what others did in a time we were not alive in and have no idea how the people were educated to believe, react or what truly happened.
|
Is all history that is not simple paralytic? I do not grant that you have effectively argued for the link between failure to act in positive ways and the practice of complicating history. I would like to see you justify why you hold this beleif.
Quote:
|
It's very easy to play armchair QB on a Monday or Tuesday and proclaim, "that this was wrong and this should have been done and blah blah blah and since it wasn't that way well we hold in disgrace and total disgust all that was done by these peoples."
|
We can cheer, but we cannot critque? Why is the historical narrative you propose better? This argument is a non-sequiter. History in general has been validated as an academic discipline. Why would coming to certain conclusions, a priori, be better than others.
Quote:
In all honesty what does that achieve but trying to make YOU feel better and trying to score points with those who blame 100, 200, 300 years ago on their failures to advance. Are you changing anything? NO, you just condemn and offer solutions that cannot possibly happen.
What do you want? For all peoples of European ancestory to leave the Western Hemisphere? For every white man to beg forgiveness for slavery? What is your purpose? Am I supposed to walk around with my head down and be appologetic for my ancestors? I see nothing positive or noble in demanding the sons pay for the sins of the fathers when the sons are moving forward and trying to make the world better.
|
Where is this coming from? I really don't know...and i'm not asking to be a wise ass. I'm leaving out your charactization of liberal politics. I consider it to be deeply misleading, but it is off topic.
Quote:
|
You say the culture still exports violence and poverty.... yes but where are your solutions that work .... all I see are fingers being pointed and refusals to see any of the true positive changes that have been made.
|
This is a misleading argument. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss alternatives to the violence of our civilization. I, and others, have offered solutions in various threads on international politics threads. One step i will offer here for our continual export of violence?
Learn about history. Learn that good intentions are not enough. Learn that the West doesn't and hasn't always known best. Learn that there have been sucesses, but that they required great effort and careful dillegence. Learn that there are always places to improve, and lessons to be gained from history...mistakes and sucesses alike.
Quote:
|
I never said to discount the Holocaust, I said we can learn from it, in positive ways. We can't condemn every German for it.
|
You may be being easier on Germans than Germany. They have mantained collective responsibility for the Shoah, and worked to maintain the memory of those events. They have praised those who did work against it, but also have paid attention to the way that general consent for the regime allowed the Shoah to occur.
Quote:
|
You make no sense to me.... which feeds your egos so you can believe you are enlightened.... but with enligthenment comes working solutions and I don't see you offering any, just hatreds and prejudices and angers over the past.
|
At least this is mutual. You are not propsing knowledge. You are arguing for a whitewash of history. Careful study may produce a less glamorous picture than you're used to. This does not mean there is a problem with the scholarship. It probably indicates a problem with the grand narrative that sold you on the idea of these men as heros in the first place.