USA’s presidents have all been awful humans
USA’s presidents have all been awful humans
You're viewing a single thread.
289 comments
-
Okay, fella - take a few breaths and relax. People are products of their times. The better ones fight for virtues and values they see as better at the time. They see an opportunity others do not and rally people around those.
Others they don't see and continue wi5h those norms, or they see the wrongs but don't believe they can rally people around fixing them.
Do not demonize people in the past who do not meet current norms. There will never be anybody who will meet those standards.
Judge them against the standards of their peers.
What if MLK did not support feminists? Would he now be considered scum, thus negating everything good he ever did?
Heck, i don't know if he had a stance on women's rights explicitly. Maybe he didn't. Is he evil if he didn't?
-
Do not demonize people in the past who do not meet current norms. There will never be anybody who will meet those standards.
"Nazis were just a product of their time!"
-
So you believe the entirety of the United States' existence is an affront to humanity as it's very foundation is as evil as Nazism, right? Nothing America ever stood for was any better rhan the worst of humanity.
It is telling that you can so lightly equate my comment to waving off Nazism as if across the developed world Nazism was the norm of the time. Yes, most peoples in the European culture were naturally Nazis, and only a few morally sound people were against it. I see your troll... And I set your straw man on fire.
-
So you believe the entirety of the United States’ existence is an affront to humanity as it’s very foundation is as evil as Nazism, right?
considering that
- it was founded on genocide
- it was built by slavery
- it still has not completely outlawed slavery
- lebensraum was explicitly based on manifest destiny
- it has killed far more people than the nazis ever managed
yes, the usa is an affront to humanity and is on par with the third reich
-
-
-
What if MLK did not support feminists? Would he now be considered scum, thus negating everything good he ever did?
he literally addressed the national organization for women in 1966 and espoused their ideals.
giving a pass to the people from history is problematic because the same ideals of progressiveness that we pride ourselves on today were present in the past and people knew that it existed; they simply weren't as popular back then as they are now and anyone espousing them back then were treated like tankies of their own time.
giving them a pass only helps to excuse regressivism and anti-progressive sentiment like both the republicans and democrats (respectively) practice today; this is a key reason why we have trump as president today and probably jd vance tomorrow.
-
Excellent job taking what I wrote and reframing it to make it appear i asserted something I did not.
Reading the room, I can see this forum is filled with people who have an axe to grind and have already decided I am a "part of the problem" because I had the audacity to suggest that we should not demonize the American founders.
Good luck finding a nation that has any redeeming qualities, given that no founders are unimpeachable for anything.
-
you're missing the point and no nation's founder's character is unassailable.
we give grand canyon sized passes to these specific founders to white wash their truly horrific behaviors (that we know about); but don't do the same thing for founders that we consider our enemies and that's indicative of the propaganda that we keep perpetuating when we repeat this whitewashing to each other; as well as the reason why we're descending into fascism.
no one is immune to propaganda so, yes, you are part of the problem like i am; the only difference is that me along with most of the people commenting on this post are aware of this specific propaganda and you're not; hopefully unwittingly so.
-
I find it ironic that you think I am unaware of some propaganda, presumably related to this thread.
I learned about the imperfect personalities of our founders and their peers in elementary school. No passes were given. I also learned that many of the founders sought to explicitly outlaw slavery, but compromised in order to get unity vs. king Charles and a viable nation.
Had they not done that, we would have been divided against an overwhelmingly powerful existential threat and probably would have lost. It is an example of making incremental progress and postponing a conflict until later so that there will be a later.
You are missing my point. "Canceling" historical figures or rewriting history because "bad" is a disservice to everyone. Acknowledging both the good and bad is the better approach. We learn by studying history, identifying the failures and successes precisely to learn from them and hopefully do better.
Our current president is an example of what happens when we don't learn from history. I don't know any reasonable person who whitewashed our founders. For those people, you need to look at movements that seek authoritarian control over a population, the people who follow them, and their victims who were denied the necessary education in history and critical thinking.
Additionally, I think most on this thread need to brush up on logical fallacies. Even the best of us forget some of them, but it is endemic in these forums.
-
your point misses THE point; nothing is being cancelled; and incrementalism only serves to perpetuate our unjust society.
the way you describe authoritarian movements and mass genociders as "imperfect personalities" is an unironic and unaware manifestation of the our blessed homeland meme
you advocate for critical thinking and learning from history without acknowledging that your own country is an authoritarian oligarchical regime that denies its victims the necessary education that would teach the history and critical thinking they need and it has lead the election of an openly authoritarian president who seeks control; as all presidents in the past have done; and it will lead to more.
i don't know what your education is like, so i don't know what you learned in elementary school about these founder's crimes against humanity; but if it's anything like how most american voters' education of these men, it's seriously lacking on this topic.
-
-
-
-
-
Okay. There were staunch abolitionists across the US and especially in the UK. Many of whom were operating on the basis of equality, i.e. not the American belief that black people are a subspecies that were sent from heaven to serve whites, like all the leaders of the US though before the 1900s.
So by your own method, Washington was a disgusting human being, one would argue a demon.
-
That statement does not make any sense. You need to review the concept of 'logic'. This is another excellent example of twisting a statement to discredit the person who said it rather than addressing the concept put forth by that person.
-
Really? You think because people existed who held our view of what is right means all who did not have an epiphany, and whole-heartedly agree, are horrible subhuman beings?
-
That humans are human?
Yeah, I'm willing to draw the line in the sand there. Equality in the face of nobility (i.e. class vs race based discrimination) is more fair and equal than the view espoused by our founding fathers. But all caste systems have always been bad. Universally. And no matter the culture or time period with this idea, you'll find a loud minority or a large majority of people that disagree with the caste system in place.
Because that's how they work, a minority can only benefit, and are the only ones that need it to work, so the less stratified they are the more people are against it but are rendered powerless by the system in place.
Every human that didn't believe in equality, and by that I just mean that all humans are human, is a bad person.
For fucks sake orangutans got their name because we as a species treated them as human at one point. If we can do that to a fucking monkey there's no epiphany needed to do it to actual humans.
-
Your prose belies your ideology, which indicates said ideology depends on defining those who don't fulfill said ideology as sub-human. So far, most responses have been attempts to indirectly assert that the idea that people who were wrong about some things cannot possibly have been right about anything (and by the way, any who think otherwise are just as horrible).
I am quite aware there is nothing i could possibly say to get anybody to address the actual issue i raised, never mind "win" a debate over it.
-
-
-
There are people today rightly pointing out the looting of the global South by the global North, and yet nobody in the north is volunteering to give it all back. What disgusting human beings, if they had any decency they'd give it back and ritually kill themselves
-
Perhaps I'm not seeing the sarcasm in this. The level of hatred one has to have for a whole population to genuinely want them all killed in disgrace reminds me of something that happened in recent history several times... hmm... what could that be? Cambodia, Serbia, Germany... hmm.
Mighty high horse there. Got a mirror? Consider using it.
-
That line only works when most of the global north aren't more poor than those in the south.
Most people in the western world do want to remove the stolen wealth and return it, since they've never seen it either.
-
????? Do they really though? I rarely see the sentiment that literally all ill-gotten gains forming the foundation of their nation's power and stability should be returned (and definitely not from people benefitting). Mostly it's just tossing a few cultural artifacts, some meager reparations, and cutting back on some luxury like chocolate because it makes them feel bad. That's the same as freeing a few slaves after you profit off them for your whole life (and we established that makes you a demon).
Or are you arguing about injustices in classes? If everyone being exploited by the rich agreed to dismantle that system it would be done by now. Doesn't matter if you're poor, you participate in the problem.
You probably just want your exploitation to be marginally less than the guys on the bottom, you don't care about the core issue. Therefore being opposed to the compete dismantling of our current economic system is regressive and 90% of earth's population are demons
-
My dude I'm dual citizen Chinese and us, stealing from the rich and building the fundamentals of society equally is kinda my jam, even if someone did fuck up and make me a us citizen by default.
The American working class, despite making far more than their peers in the global South, are usually more poor than their peers in the global South. Home ownership is a myth and favelas are banned here; you'll not only never retire but even if you manage to get to retirement age all your money is going to go to medical care. You might have a car but you need it to live since there's more distance between your house and the only grocery store than there is between most villages in poor countries. Hell all the wealth the US stole still has more people living near open sewage lines than any country in South America. Shit even the cops are more corrupt than those in the south but you can't even bribe them since they're paid so much by the rich to protect their property.
The American poor are happy to give up the wealth their country stole, because they never saw any of it.
-
You must hang with a pretty progressive crowd, which is exactly my point. You could pick 10 of the poorest quartile of Americans and I'd bet the house that every single one wants to redistribute that money to themselves.
They've probably never left their state, let alone visited another country. You don't have to benefit from an injust system to want to perpetuate it.
Why do you think ending USAID resonates with the poor? Why would someone struggling to pay rent volunteer a huge chunk of their nation's wealth to go halfway across the world?
61% of Americans explicitly don't want to increase foreign aid, which is a much less controversial topic than actual reparations.
In 200 years, after theoretical major reparations, would it be unfair to call 61%+ of Americans people of their time? Or are they all demons for participating in a regressive system?
Getting back to George W., total abolition was a severe minority position at the time. Even up to the divisive start of the Civil War, estimates are well under 10% support for northern voters and functionally 0% for southerners. Add in the 18% of the population in slavery, and a random sampling would get you in the low 20% supporting total abolition.
Washington was a third generation slave owner, and by all accounts he died supporting the gradual abolition of the slavery via ending slave trade. Not exactly a paradigm of virtue but it made him a tiny bit progressive relative to most of his peers.
We can't retroactively apply our modern moral framework just because there are a handful of historical peers who were more progressive. Save the fire and brimstone for the people that actively deserve it.
For example Mark Twain built his career around being a racist funnyman, and held genuinely regressive views for the time. He doesn't get half as much shit because his face isn't carved on a mountain. He literally fought in the Civil War for the slavers. Why do we care more about Washington's dentures?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lots of "what-ifs" to dismiss people highlighting historical genocidal slavers.
-
People are products of their times.
You hear this a lot, but then you and look at "the times" and find arguments in favor of cultural integration dating back thousand of years.
It is true that people are the products of their time, but those times are not as radically distant moral wise as it is usually assumed.
-
Yeah, nobody at that time knew slavery was wrong. Well, I mean, except for all the slaves, obviously, they knew, but there was no way for them to get their perspective heard because they were cut out of the political process. Who cut them out of the process? Well, uh, well you see...
-
There were plenty of peers, even UK and European ones, that opposed the US colonial project. Read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history if you want an in-depth look at the debates of the time.
-
What a horrible, out of touch thing to say in response to this image and all its context
-
Product of the times isn't a great way to put it, but you can certainly make the argument that most people have shades of grey morality.
Science can back you up, too, as I teach social psychology and when you dig in, you find that normative human nature is pretty complex but generally very supportive for in-group and mildly empathetic even with strangers. It's only when you dehumanize a group do you get the worst behavior, and in all four cases you see that, be it slaves or indigenous people.
When you look at those times, it's people who recognized their humanity that ended up in the just side of history.
-
289 comments