discuss Should Historical Figures Be Judged by Modern Standards?

[Apsara]

Many historical figures held beliefs now seen as immoral. Should they be condemned, or should context matter? Does rewriting history help society progress, or does it erase valuable lessons? How do you personally judge figures from the past?

 

[Jason]

I don't agree with renaming stuff, except for extreme stuff like with Nathan Bedford Forrest etc.. I also don't agree with renaming stuff from the right-wing perspective like renaming Greenland "Red, White, and Blue land" .

Anyway, people of the past lived in a different time and can't be judged by present morality to a large degree. For instance, in George Washington's day, bullwhipping was just a common punishment of about everyone, but today's people see it as something that was only used on African descended slaves.

 

[1stop]

Historical figures should be judged because some of their actions or beliefs can not be justified. For example, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, which, today is condemned. Nonetheless, on the other hand, he was a product of that time in the 18th century.

 

[Jason]

Historical figures should be judged because some of their actions or beliefs can not be justified. For example, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, which, today is condemned. Nonetheless, on the other hand, he was a product of that time in the 18th century.

What I find funny is that few liberals will condemn Aztec human Sacrifice. The liberal rock star Neil Young even wrote a popular song praising the Aztec, ignoring the sacrifices.

 

[Harsh World]

What I find funny is that few liberals will condemn Aztec human Sacrifice. The liberal rock star Neil Young even wrote a popular song praising the Aztec, ignoring the sacrifices.

Liberals will only use an argument when it suits their purpose. Many times, they reference the Bible without even knowing the context because it suits their argument and makes it seem like a "win" over conservatives.

It's eyerolling, to say the least.

 

[Jason]

Liberals will only use an argument when it suits their purpose. Many times, they reference the Bible without even knowing the context because it suits their argument and makes it seem like a "win" over conservatives.

It's eyerolling, to say the least.

I really think both sides do this a lot with the Bible and other things.

 

[Harsh World]

I really think both sides do this a lot with the Bible and other things.

But when conservatives do it, it's to support their argument because they believe in it.

When liberals do it, they do it to support their argument but don't believe in the Bible. So, why cite a source in support of an argument that you don't believe in the first place?

That's the difference between the two.

 

[Jason]

But when conservatives do it, it's to support their argument because they believe in it.

When liberals do it, they do it to support their argument but don't believe in the Bible. So, why cite a source in support of an argument that you don't believe in the first place?

That's the difference between the two.

Some liberals believe in the Bible, but they don't have a fundamentalist interpretation of it. Well, even myself, I don't really think the fundamentalist interpretation is correct. For instance, I don't think Hell is eternal and I don't see the Bible backing Christian Zionism.

 

[Harsh World]

Some liberals believe in the Bible, but they don't have a fundamentalist interpretation of it.

That's the problem with liberals, though. They will fall in lockstep with the Democrats, who are so anti-Christian, and vote against their true values.

 

[Jason]

Well, changing the thread a bit. Let's talk about renaming things. Well, renaming things is dumb, aside extreme things like "a statute of Nathan Beford Forrest in the Tennessee state capitol".

So, what is the point of renaming things, what is the point of it?

 

[Harsh World]

So, what is the point of renaming things, what is the point of it?

It shouldn't have been done by the liberals in the first place.

We're just renaming them back, but assigning different meanings so they can't have the same argument to rename it again if they regain power.

The installation was initially named after Confederate general Braxton Bragg. From 2023 to 2025, its name was changed to Fort Liberty due to controversy surrounding memorials to Confederate generals. In February 2025, the name was reverted to the original, albeit with a different namesake: World War II paratrooper Roland L. Bragg.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bragg

 

[Jason]

It shouldn't have been done by the liberals in the first place.

We're just renaming them back, but assigning different meanings so they can't have the same argument to rename it again if they regain power.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bragg

Is there something intrinsically evil about Confederate stuff, aside from extreme examples (Nathan Bedford Forrest)?

 

[Oshawott]

There is hardly any morality that is context-place-time neutral.

In that sense, you cant judge anyone, not even common people if not leaders based on modern moral standards. For example, Germany has tried so hard to wipe off the memory of holocaust in the world. But what use it?

We just move forward with history and historical figures. It is, in any sense, in the past and we judging them now should make a little difference.

 

[Jason]

There is hardly any morality that is context-place-time neutral.

In that sense, you cant judge anyone, not even common people if not leaders based on modern moral standards. For example, Germany has tried so hard to wipe off the memory of holocaust in the world. But what use it?

We just move forward with history and historical figures. It is, in any sense, in the past and we judging them now should make a little difference.

I hate what happened in the Holocaust, but a man can't be a man with no job. That was the situation in Germany in 1930.

 

[King Belieal]

I don't dare criticize any historical figure based on the beliefs they held in the past. We always have to examine context carefully before we make judgements on the people. I always try to understand why the norms that made those historical figures take the beliefs they held.

 

[Maina]

Judging historical figures by modern standards is complex. On one hand, it’s important to acknowledge their contributions within the context of their time. On the other, we can’t ignore the harm some caused.

 

[Yama]

I am against judging historical figures according to modern standards. They lived according to the rules that were common in those days, time was different. We should appreciate what they have actually given to us. Having said that truth should also be brought out tell people what they did.