Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Don't forget the Gadsden Purchase. I think this has to do with these territories being sparsely populated and mostly far away from their owners' countries. That wouldn't be the case in Europe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer from the U.S. point of view is manifest destiny. The United States from very early on saw itself as a continental nation. What it lacked was the continent. It sought to rectify that by buying up land that, as Clarityfiend notes, European countries were happy to be rid of; administrating a giant, vacant land populated by semi-nomadic natives is something that the European colonial powers found hard to do. Once the U.S. established itself over the eastern coast of North America, it made the interior of North America much less attractive for Europe. --Jayron3202:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be borne in mind that this was the generally-preferred way of acquiring Indian lands, although as always in these cases (cf. Africa, Palestine, Scotland, Ireland, Central Asia), it's can often be hard to say who, if indeed anyone, had the authority to alienate tribal, clan or national land, and what the sale and purchase of land meant under the natives' law as opposed to the settlers'. Did a chief or elder or priest have absolute ownership in the same way that a modern European or North American landlord does today, or was his authority over land limited or derivative? Breaking up communal lands into patches of private property was a prime aim of late 19th-century U.S. Indian policy. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the USA, there are not many modern countries founded in modern times on territory that previously was not another modern country. --Dweller (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike many other parts of the world during the Age of European exploration North America was subjected to many overlapping claims and power struggles by rival European powers--more so, I think, than most other places of a similar size (eg, Australia, Siberia). For centuries Spain, France, England, and others claimed every known part of the continent, and did their best to force the other powers to respect their claims. Over time a system of international law developed for dealing with overlapping claims and conflicts. Sometimes an imperial power simply couldn't stand up to the others and got overrun (eg, New Netherland, New Sweden). But England, France, Spain, and later the United States, Mexico, Russia, etc, were able to "stay in the game" for centuries.
Part of the "game" was making concessions here for advantages there. Sometimes a power felt threatened by another but was able to create a "buffer state" by ceded territory to a third, less threatening power. The "purchases" arose from complex geopolitical struggles and strategies, not simply one side wanting money and the other wanting land. The political background behind the Louisiana Purchase is fairly well known, if complex. Part of Napoleon's reasoning was, apparently, that it would strengthen the United States and thwart, to some degree, Britain's aspirations in the continent's interior. The Louisiana Purchase can be understood, in some context, as a way for France to make things harder for Britain. If nothing else, the US did not go into the negotiations intending to offer to buy all of Louisiana. That was France's doing.
The Alaska Purchase (1867) involved similar international geopolitical strategies outside the control of the United States. The history is complex of course, but to generalize: Tensions between Russia and Britain had been heating up at the time. The Crimean War didn't help relations, to be sure! Russia's hold on Alaska was tenuous, limited to the south and southeast coastal area. British influence and control in southeast Alaska was rapidly growing. In the early 19th century British and American traders competed for supplying Russian Alaska with food (Russian Alaska was chronically short of food). The Russians were able to play the British and Americans traders off one another, effectively keeping both from gaining too much influence in Alaska. But by the mid-19th century the Americans had been economically forced out of the Alaska trade by the British Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), which soon took advantage of the new situation. The HBC essentially gained control of the Alaska panhandle (technically it was a "lease"). The HBC was also establishing forts in the Alaskan interior, beyond Russian control. Russia knew its hold on Alaska was probably doomed and it could easily end up British territory. Russia saw Britain as a far larger threat than the United States at the time. Selling Alaska to America not only prevented Britain from getting it, but created a kind of "buffer zone" between British North America and Russian Siberia. As with the Louisiana Purchase the the United States was the beneficiary of geopolitical struggles between other powers. American history usually paints William H. Seward as the driving force behind the Alaska Purchase, but I suspect that view is oversimplified and US-biased. Alexander II of Russia was probably much more responsible for making it happen.
Anyway, my point is--centuries of imperial rivalry in North America may be a major factor in why the US's territorial expansion involved a number of "purchases" (and things like the Adams–Onís Treaty, which involved among other things Spanish land cession and American payments). The term "purchase" misleadingly suggests a fairly simple transaction. Even so, why did these things happen more in what became the US than elsewhere (if that claim is even true)? Could it have something to do with a relative lack, in other regions of a similar size, of centuries of struggle between at least three major imperial powers? Russia's claims to Siberia were never effectively challenged by other European powers, nor Britain's claim to Australia, nor Spain's claims to most of Latin America (with some notable exceptions). Even within North America, Britain's claim to Canada was largely unchallenged after France ceded Quebec, apart the Oregon boundary dispute. European imperialism in Africa may be a good example. I don't know its history as well, but can well imagine large swaths of land being sold from one imperial power to another. That is a part of African history, no? To conclude, I was going to say something about the Native American title thing, which adds a whole additional dimension, but have already written too much! Sorry for the length. Pfly (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were occasionally amicable swaps of colonial posessions, such as the Heligoland–Zanzibar Treaty between Germany and Britain, but I can't think of an example where they were actually sold, outside of North America. Unless anyone knows better... Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One way you can think of this is that the US had more opportunities to buy land than others, and it took them. "Why'd it take them" is pretty straightforward in most cases (to assure control of the Mississippi River, for example). "Why'd it have those opportunities" is a question about the empires that offered them up for sale and the reasons they had to part with that territory. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right in saying that the sellers in each case had nominal possession of the territories but not the resources to exploit them in any profitable way. Therefore, the sellers were happy to get rid of the territories (at a price) and the US had the will and the resources to buy. Interestingly, the Louisiana Purchase was financed by a loan from a consortium of British banks, and the proceeds were used to finance the projected invasion of Britain. Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly my understanding in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, whose offering is a reflection of French imperial failures in the Caribbean more than anything to do with the United States in particular. I don't know much about the Alaska purchase, though saying that Russia did not have the resources to run Alaska is almost certainly true. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to comments above, generally. One might say that the real reason underlying the US land purchases were to establish legitimacy -- in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, that land would probably have fallen under US control anyway, so the payment was really a token marker to avoid misunderstandings, and possibly to avoid a needless war. Just one other idea: one could look at it like this -- that the US purchases of territory could be seen not as a strength, but as a weakness, in the sense that the US would probably have occupied those lands anyway (particularly the Louisiana Purchase) but that European powers with minimal real ownership of the land "shook down" the US government for a substantial payment. Or, a United States with a more astute foreign policy would have won those territories (and maybe more) without having to pay for them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno on that last part. The Louisiana Purchase was a pretty damn good deal. Hard to imagine a cheaper way to acquire it. (And let's remember that wars are very expensive.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This ties into the Native American thing. The Louisiana Purchase didn't give the US federal government full ownership of the land. Most of it was occupied by Native Americans. The United States considered the natives as having title to the land, which could be "extinguished" by treaties (cession and payment), or acquired by right of conquest in the case of war, and so on. The process of extinguishing the native titles was, of course, horribly messy and a major blot of American history, but even so most of the Louisiana Purchase was purchased a second time, the titles passing from the Native Americans to the federal government. What the US bought from France wasn't "title" so much as the exclusive right to deal with the Native Americans without interference from other imperial powers, at least in principal, and unless war broke out between imperial powers. I've wondered what the full cost of Louisiana was, counting the purchase from France and all the payments made in acquiring the native titles. I'm sure it was still a "good deal"--plus once the federal government owned the titles they sold the land to settlers and doubtlessly ended up making a very nice profit in the end. Anyway, it's true that American pioneers would probably have pushed into Louisiana regardless, and the more adventurous started quite early, squatting on land still claimed by Native Americans, in hopes of someday gaining ownership. But most waited until the risks were lower and the chance of acquiring land ownership was more certain. That couldn't happen until the federal government had acquired the native titles and began setting up surveying teams and land offices, etc. Pfly (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't manage to find a map of Afghanistan (Laghman) with the places of Garouch and Bad Pakh (or Badpakh) on it (I only found that Bad Pak is "just a few kilometers inside the Kapisa-Laghman border"), is there reliable data somewhere with the location of these places ?
If a Wikipedia editor wants to participate in an annual Wikimania, which is being held in another country where the said editor doesn't live, will he have to bear the transportation cost (air fare), or will it be provided by the Wikimedia Foundation? What costs should the editor bear himself? --SupernovaExplosionTalk09:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why the system do not mention any indication; reference to the Jurisprudence, Barrister, Magistrate 17th century. And of Great Britain, England United Kingdom legal person by the title Jurisprudence,Barrister,Magistrate. History have concluded that / mention person was very important the English legal system. Archive of London would a refer /to enquiry / Please relay your finding to me as soon as possible. Appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambridge.1999 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To get a useful answer, you're frankly going to have to express your question more clearly than that. What system do you mean? Are you referring to one or more specific articles here on Wikipedia? Which person or people are you referring to?
However, I can help with two things. Firstly, none of the three words you are concerned about is used as a title for an individual in this country, nor ever was. Jurisprudence is a thing, not a person. Barristers are simply referred to as "Mr Smith" or whatever - it's a job, not a title. And the title for a magistrate is Justice of the Peace, often abbreviated to JP. So if the person in question was a magistrate, it would be fair to put that after their name, eg, "Mr John Smith, JP". But if they were a barrister, there's nothing to add. The system of titles for Judges is more complicated; see Lord Judge for some examples. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too am confused by the OP's question, but Alex, you've committed a similar sin by writing "in this country" without telling us which one. So now I'm doubly confused. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about the UK (or, probably just England and Wales). That the OP is interested in the UK is one of the few things I can work out from the question. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the Abrahamic religions tend to be more intolerant of other religions or beliefs? For example, in many Islamic countries, and historically in some Christian countries, having a different religion can be fatal. Like currently in Saudi Arabia, people having another religion can be persecuted or executed, while historically in Christian Europe, non-Christians or heretics would either be executed or be forced to convert/repent. In Christianity, some denominations believe that only they will be saved, while people of other denominations or religions will go to hell. They are also willing to excommunicate/disfellowship adherents just because they question or do not follow doctrines. Christian and Muslim powers were willing to conquer other lands and have the unfortunate, colonized people convert to their religions or face death. And let's not even get started on the jihads and Crusades. By contrast, the Dharmic religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism seem to be more tolerant of other faiths, to the point that those religions may syncretize with the local faiths (like in Japan with Shinto and Buddhism), although that also occurs sometimes to a lesser extent with the Abrahamic religions. There have been some exceptions - there was one time where Hindus killed Christians (can't remember when), when Japan killed Christians (although that had more to do with the shoguns than with Shinto), but for the most part they are tolerant. There was a Caliphate (can't remember if it was the Umayyad or the Abbasid) which allowed other faiths to freely practice. And of course, there is the Baha'i Faith Why is this the case? Why in some sects of Christianity or Islam, ideas that differ from their sect's beliefs are frowned upon? (such as in Jehovah's Witnesses, where leaving the group or accepting blood transfusions can cause the person to be disfellowshipped) Can't they just get along? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Four possible answers:
Religious intolerance is just a form of realpolitik; what you're really seeing are other power grabs that manifest as religious statements.
You may be underestimating the ability of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shinto to have extremely intolerant sects and actions. Extremist Hinduism in particular has more than its fair share of holy blood on its hands in India and Pakistan.
There are completely tolerant sects of Abrahamic religions, though they are rarely the ones that end up in power. This may be an instance of answer #1, but it also may be something Darwinian: the evangelical and intolerant branches may have an advantage when it comes to spreading their message.
Judaism and Islam in particular were born of out very difficult circumstances. The Old Testament is an account of persecution, slavery, and conquest. The New Testament is a bit lighter on these fronts but certain sects Christianity still appeal to the Old when it comes to being very intolerant and looking for excuse to stone people. Islam was forged out of persecution and conquest. These seminal themes have imbued the foundation texts with quite a lot of explicit intolerance (but also quite a bit of tolerance — and people pick and choose.) But I would also note that Hinduism is full of these same themes. Buddhism and Shinto I know a lot less well.
I'm not wed to any of those answers myself. They each do some work but leave some loose ends. But I'm offering them up as thoughts that came to mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old Testament Judaism was contemptuous of pagan religious beliefs, and on some occasions bitterly violent against groups which were perceived as blocking the Israelites/Jews from being able to live in their own holy land (given to them by God). However, it was not expansionist -- there was no real impulse to conquer those living outside the holy land, and proselytization was never a central feature of Jewish religion. In this respect, Judaism was very different from Islam... P.S. Dharmic religions seem to have done little to diminish conflict in Sri Lanka (sometimes in fact the reverse). AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are very different religions in that respect, but I just wanted to point out that there is plenty in the OT to justify lashing out at ones enemies, dashing their heads on the rocks, etc. This only matters, of course, when the Jews have been in position to lash out at enemies (e.g. when they had kingdoms, or a modern nation state, both of which are rare periods of political power in their history) — or when it is used to justify other Abrahamic religions that are more expansionist (like Christianity, which turns to the OT whenever it wants a really angry God). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd very much go with the argument that people (mis)interpret their religion, whatever it is, to justify whatever evil plans they have. Take Christianity. The actual teachings of Christ were pacifism, equality, charity for the poor, etc. Yet, in His name, we got crusades, massive inequality (colonialism, all-powerful Popes, etc.), and the poor treated as criminals. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the very First Commandment tells adherents "You shall have no other gods before Me" probably doesn't help". HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although that "before me" clause leaves open the idea that they could believe in other gods, perhaps on an equal footing. The Church, however, (mis)interpreted that to mean "Ye shall have no other Gods, at all." StuRat (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the writer feel the need to add "before My face" ? Does that mean it's OK to worship other gods in secret ? Considering that tolerance for the many religions of the day was the norm at the time (since attacking every other religion would get you killed), allowing this to continue seems the more likely interpretation, to me. It was only later, once Judaism had spawned Christianity and spread throughout Europe, that killing everyone of a different religion, in the Holy Land, became possible (although ancient Israel/Judea seemed to give it a try). StuRat (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's OK, as long as God doesn't see it ? This means God isn't omnipresent, but there are other verses to support that idea, like God apparently not immediately knowing that Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis 3:8-13 doesn't appear to show our current concept of an omnipresent, formless God, but rather a God that "walks", "sees", needs to cool down physically, and doesn't even immediately understand everything:
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
That so much interpretation is required at all allows all sorts of bigotry to be justified by manipulative reinterpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this one: Mat 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think "evil" is probably a not-useful category here. The Crusades weren't about anybody being "evil" and neither are jihads. That's a silly and simplistic explanation. There are real political reasons for these things. This is the realpolitik explanation — that religion is a convenient motivator for politics by other means. Again, I don't think it covers all situations — some of these folks really did believe, genuinely, that their religion told them to do these things, and that they were right, and so on. But chucking all of that under "evil" is not a useful approach. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this question is about religion, and evil is a dominant concept in Abrahamic religions, it seems appropriate. Specifically, going against the will of "God" is defined as evil. I can think of no better description for using a religion to justify doing the exact opposite of what the founder of the religion wanted. Anyone who read the teachings of Christ would know that the Crusades were wrong, but back then it was illegal to translate them into common language, and many were illiterate in any case, so all the common people got was The Church's (mis)interpretation of those words. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I knew I did't want to jump into this discussion. The crusades and other forms of violence were justified by referring to the Bible and to patristic literature (in particular Augustine). Apparently this blows everyone's mind today, but they also considered themselves to be defending the Holy Land from Muslim aggression and winning it back for Christianity. I also don't see what the Latin Bible has to do with anything, that's a complete non sequitur. Translating it into common languages doesn't make it any better-understood, in fact it wasn't illegal to translate the Bible at all, it was just illegal to make an unauthorized translation. But none of that really has anything to do with the crusades. (Also, some people back then did oppose the crusades using the same Latin Bible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are an editor in an encyclopedia and don't understand the importance of direct access to a source versus only getting one (potentially biased) interpretation of that source ?
This gives The Church many options to control the public perception of the Crusades:
A) Only cite those verses which support killing, such as those from the Old Testament, omitting the many pacifist teachings of Christ.
B) Slightly change the meaning when translating each verse to the common language.
C) After delivering each verse, supply the Church's interpretation of that verse, but don't allow any other interpretations to be mentioned.
For example, if the Church read the story of Abraham and Isaac, this could easily be twisted to mean that everyone should be willing to kill their own children on God's command. The Church then, claiming to know the will of God, could say that everyone in the Holy Land was so commanded by God, and, if they didn't do so, it was the duty of all good Christians to kill those children, on God's behalf. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine going to the science desk and attempting to answer questions when I have no idea what I'm talking about. Why do you do it here? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the Abrahamic religions is founded on the premise that its believers have a special covenant with God exclusive to their religion, and that their covenant is the only valid one. Historically, when members of Abrahamic religions have gained state power, they have taken the position that their favored relationship with God gives them the right to exclusive privileges. Sometimes, political leaders from those religions have gained political advantage by portraying nonmembers as godless outsiders who pose a threat to God's people, a threat that demands a violent response. This kind of attitude has historically been much less common among the Dharmic religions and other Eastern religions such as Taoism, for reasons that vary from one religion to another. While Hindus do worship deities, they worship quite a number of them, and they differ over which deity is greatest (e.g., Shaivism and Vaishnavism), while most acknowledge the validity of different deities. Ultimately, Hindus see the deities (and all else) as manifestations of Brahman, a cosmic force without anthropomorphic features and not susceptible to the kind of special relationship that Abrahamic religions claim with their God. Unable to claim the exclusive favor and authority of an exclusive, omnipotent god, Hindus have had little basis for religious persecution of others. Arguably, modern groups such as the BJP have persecuted non-Hindus more on cultural or nationalist grounds than on purely religious grounds. That is, they object to non-Hindus not because they think that they are religiously unpure but because they think that loyal Indians must also be Hindu and that others are aliens for fundamentally political and cultural reasons. As for the other major Eastern religions, they also lack a concept of a personified, authoritarian god that might show favor to some over others based on their adherence to dogma. They also share a philosophy of nonaction or nonattachment that is antithetical to religious persecution. The only case I know of Buddhist religious persecution is in Sri Lanka, where again its basis is ethnic and national rather than truly religious. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting book called Zen at War, about the links between Zen Buddhism and Japanese militarism up to World War Two. It's not about religious persecution so much, but does show how Zen got tied up with that era's ultranationalism and militant expansionism. Our Hakkō ichiu page uses terms like "divinely ordained" and "holy war". Zen Buddhism played an important part in this stuff. Pfly (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible teaches that we should respect someone's right to make a decision on which religion and personal beliefs to follow, but we are not required to necessarily respect their choice. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in tolerance levels may be due to the difference in the original purpose of the religion's founders. I see three distinct origins of religions
1) To explain how man came to be and to explain phenomenon such as lightning, crop failures, fertility/sterility, rough seas, etc.
2) To spread philosophies on how one should live
3) To gain control over others, to gather money
There is little reason for the religions found due to either of the first two ideas to strongly oppose other religions. It can only be expected that religions founded even in part for the third reason actively strongly oppose other religions and actively try to proselytize, threaten others into joining. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concept of a covenant with God, as mentioned earlier, is the most likely cause for Abrahamic religions' (perceived) intolerance. Since each of the Abrahamic religions portrays itself as the only true religion, it is very difficult, if not even impossible to other religions. However, the outcome of this belief might be different, on the one hand it could be the killing of adherents of other religions, or it could be sending out missionaries equipped with convincing arguments to convert them. Indeed, Jesus did command his disciples to make all of mankind his followers, which, is usually seen to mean that those who do not believe in Jesus should be converted, not killed. (Two ways to make all of mankind Christian would be to either convert everyone else, or kill everyone else.)
Because of this view of a one true religion, the Abrahamic religions are probably more useful to achieve certain goals: Opponents can be cast in the role of the infidel, needing to be removed. However, the level to which religion was the actual goal might vary. In popular culture, we usually see the Crusades as being the Christians invading the Holy Land in order to rid it of Moslems. However, they might not have been the religious 'purists' we believe they were, e.g. they used Moslem mercenaries to fight some of their enemies. In an article in Foreign Policy (2008-01-01) called 'A World without Islam', Graham Fuller writes that the crusades would probably have taken place, even without the Christian/Moslem 'Clash of civilisations'. (In 2010, Fuller published a book with the same title.)
what were the Crusades if not a Western adventure driven primarily by political, social, and economic needs? The banner of Christianity was little more than a potent symbol, a rallying cry to bless the more secular urges of powerful Europeans. In fact, the particular religion of the natives never figured highly in the West's imperial push across the globe. Europe may have spoken upliftingly about bringing "Christian values to the natives," but the patent goal was to establish colonial outposts as sources of wealth for the metropole and bases for Western power projection.
Based on this, Christianity was more a post facto justification for Western expansionism, rather than its cause. V85 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
V85 and StuRat -- The Crusades had some purely religious aspects ("Deus lo vult") and some rather self-seeking or cynical aspects (land-hungry younger sons of knights/nobility looking to move up in the world, and those seeking to divert the land-hungry younger sons of knights/nobility away from their own backyards). However, the first few Crusades at least also had a very sober and calculated strategic/military significance, since after the battle of Manzikert, it appeared that Christian civilization was threatened on two fronts simultaneously -- in Anatolia (leading to the Balkans) and in Spain -- and could be caught in a kind of large-scale pincer movement on eastern and western fronts. So one purpose of the Crusades was to break out of the threatened encirclement by Muslims, and take the fight to their own turf. No deliberate mistranslation of Bible verses was involved or necessary, as far as I'm aware, since selectively calling attention to certain passages in the Bible was more than adequate... AnonMoos (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relationship between lesbianism and 'uppity women'?
This article is not really the exact article that I read, but the content is similar about the issue. It talks about something related to a drug that could eliminate lesbianism, or worse, 'uppity women'. Because 'uppity women' and lesbianism are included simultaneously, I draw that there is connection between the two of them. The problem is, I can't tell if there is a correlation, or if the correlation is illusory, or if the claim is based on a stereotype on gay people. According to the dictionary, 'uppity' means being proud or haughty. The word has a negative connotation, because it means that a person is not modest or humble. The article does say that there is some sort of drug that could make a woman become a feminine woman, but there are drawbacks. However, the article does not really elaborate on the details about how being proud or haughty can be treated in the same manner as being a lesbian. Is there some sort of slang term for 'uppity'? Am I using the right definition? 140.254.227.51 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't read past the early parts of the article which seemed to be based on the premise that lesbianism is bad. HiLo48 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think of "uppity" meaning "trying to move above your station in life". Thus, when applied to women, the implication is that women are meant to be subservient to men, and those who aren't are called "uppity". In that case, I would think that lesbians probably are less likely to want to be subservient to men. Of course, there are also quite a few heterosexual women who reject that, as well. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I presume this is why the drug has generated controversy: because people in the 21st century think that the drug supports anti-feminism and anti-homosexuality, or anti-democratic values. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Liberals would definitely oppose it. Conservatives might, though, too. They would love to keep women subservient and heterosexual, but "going against God's will" in this way, and interfering with a fetus, are also very anti-conservative. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "uppity" was originally applied to African Americans in the pre-Civil Rights era who were seen as trying to act in a way that was not subservient. I'm not sure very many people actually used the term with regards to women, but that's the connotation that is used when it is invoked — not its literal definition. To say that someone is accusing another group (a race, a sex, what have you) of acting "uppity" is to say that they are expecting them to act subservient, but they are not. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, "uppity" in the sense that it means "haughty" is bad, because the haughty person thinks he is too good for others and indicates a sense of false superiority. Apply it to race and sex, and the word presumably assumes that the inferior person should be inferior and not rise. If that person does rise, that person thinks he is too good for others and indicate a sense of false superiority to the person who believes in and uses the term in the sense when applied to race and sex. Latently, the original thinker is the haughty person, in my opinion, not the person who is striving to the top. Sociologically, the disadvantaged wants rights and privileges, and the advantaged wants to keep their original positions. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just in case you were wondering, there is no drug that can "eliminate lesbianism". There is no "cure" for homosexuality. Those who try to do so (and many still claim they get good results) are acting in ignorance of the maxim "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There is no problem to "fix", except the attitudinal one in the minds of closed-minded people. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that homosexuality isn't a defect that needs fixing, it does seem possible, to me, that changing the hormone balance in utero may very well effect the sexual orientation of the baby. That is, sexual orientation develops in response to the hormones present. In a non-human example, cows with a bull twin often become freemartins due to exposure to male hormones in utero. Thus, they exhibit typical male characteristics. The placental barrier seems to be more effective in the case of human mixed-sex fraternal twins, or we could expect the same effect there. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is of course going on the assumption that hormones in the utero has everything to do with the development of sexual orientation in humans. I am not sure there is a general academic consensus on that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since human studies would be immoral, we must rely on animal studies, like the bovine cases I mentioned above. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's if there was any legitimacy in trying to stop sexual orientation in humans from developing in certain ways that some people have deemed to be "bad". It's not a defect requiring this or any other early intervention. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]04:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be legitimate reasons to change hormone levels in utero. For example, the freemartins mentioned above are infertile. If the same thing happens in human females with higher levels of male hormones than female, perhaps we could treat this, so that they would be fertile as adults. However, as this treatment might also affect sexual orientation, it is tricky question. This is somewhat similar to the issue of human growth hormone. That is, if somebody is deficient in HGH and will be so short they suffer medical problems, then this seems like a strong case for HGH supplements. If it's just to make a short kid taller, that's rather iffy. If it's used to make a normal-height kid into a basketball player with increased health problems, it's definitely immoral. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A drug to "cure" lesbianism? That's rich. What's really needed is to cure the types of males who are controlling, violent and murderous, like that self-styled vigilante in Arizona or wherever it was today, and that character in Norway a few weeks ago. If anyone needs curing of being "uppity", it's the male population. That will happen some time after hell freezes over or the Cubs win the World Series. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I've often thought that a testosterone inhibitor that can be sprayed on enemy troops would be a good approach. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, a battalion of jewel-encrusted chandelier-surrounded piano-playing homosexuals-in-denial who cry all the way to the bank while pining for their brother George? Yes, I can see that working. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn]23:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, claiming this drug could "eliminate lesbianism" or "uppity women" seems to be extremely hyperbolic. According to this New Scientist article, the drug is used to treat a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which affects 1 in 15000 babies. In girls, CAH causes ambiguous genitalia, apparently causes them to be more "tomboyish", and slightly increases the probability that they will be gay or bisexual. When used in the womb, the drug can prevent anatomical defects, but its other effects seem to be unclear. As far as I can tell, the claims that the drug actually has an effect on sexuality are all based on one misleading press release. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In short, what caused Greece to be in the bad shape that it's in?
The had an overly generous social safety net, with early retirement and high benefits. When they started to realize that this was unsustainable, rather than cut back, they hid the problem with accounting tricks until it became a crisis. Now, as to why their politicians chose to act so irresponsibly, that I can't answer, although fear that breaking the bad news to the public would make them unpopular was probably a factor. A more troubling thought is that they may have known the EU would bail them out, so didn't care. If so, this is rather similar to US banks taking crazy risks, knowing that the US gov would bail them out it they lost their bets. As such, the solution to both seems to either be more inspection and regulation (of the EU over Greece and the US gov over it's banks), or to cut them loose (and up, so they aren't "too big to fail", in the case of banks) and have them sink or swim on their own. However, the issue of regulatory capture will also apply in either case, if the first option is tried. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that a contributory factor was joining the Euro. In order to do this, they had to basically lie about the state of their finances. So at home and abroad, everyone thought everything was hunky dory, business as usual, and they had no reason to believe otherwise - why should they? After all, their finances were sound: surely this joining the Euro lark had proved that. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the Euro also made things worse. The reason the rules Greece broke existed was because a currency union requires everyone to have the same monetary policy so they needed to know that the same monetary policy was going to work for everyone. The Eurozone's monetary policy didn't work for Greece, though, and that would have been obvious if the truth about their financial situation had been known. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Greece had an overly generous safety net is kind of a rightwing position that not all would accept. There is no disputing that the Greek government lied about its finances and ran unsustainable deficits, but it is a matter of opinion whether the best way to prevent the deficits would have been to cut benefits for the poor and retirees or to tax the wealthy at higher levels and to enforce the tax laws so that the wealthy could not evade taxation. Even today, while the Greek government has made drastic cuts to benefits, it has failed to prevent tax evasion by the affluent. Still, the Germans and others emphasize cuts over tax enforcement.
Regarding the euro, another key reason for the Greek predicament is that they cannot devalue and inflate their way out of trouble as they might have done in the past. In the past, fiscal imbalances of that magnitude would have caused the Greek currency to plummet, simultaneously making Greek goods more competitive and dramatically increasing nominal revenue available for debt service while cutting the real value of the debt. The euro was created anchored in a European Central Bank whose only mandate is preventing inflation, while EU governments simultaneously freed the financial sector from real constraints on debt creation and virtually guaranteed public bailouts in the event of insolvency. This structure has been coupled with "austerity" policies that favor creditors (read banks and rich people) over debtors, taxpayers, and the needy to a point that guarantees economic ruin. This is a problem not just for Greece but for all of Europe, and to the extent that a similar policy has taken hold in the English-speaking world, for those countries too. Within a few years, the euro will have to be scrapped or restructured, and a global financial crisis will have unpredictable consequences outside the euro zone. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer as to the cause... The Greek government has routinely spent more money than it has taken in through taxes and other revenues. Short solution... either cut spending or raise taxes (or do both at the same time) Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to combine Marco and StuRat's responses: Capitalism. Greece emerged from WWII with a large left wing movement that was subsequently put down with fire and sword, generals and dictatorships. Capital investment in Greece was low compared to similar countries (Yugoslavia, Italy) but working class militancy was high, even with the "overflow" of emigration. Under democracy, to appease working class sentiment, Greece established a relatively generous system of State funded income supplements (see Mandel for this interpretation of government services). Similarly, Greece established a generous system of tax dodges for capital. These were both exacerbated by 50 years of practice of cheating the government, when the government was "the enemy" for large sections of the population. Now in a system where Greece's economy is not highly linked into the international capitalist economy, such a government spending programme means that Greece's rates of government interest on foreign debt will go up, and Greeks will have bad access to goods. But when the Greek economy is linked into the international capitalist economy, the Greek currency is maintained by the Euro, and Greeks are able to purchase commodities in Euros; it means that the entire economy tanks. At the end of the day capitalism, and an insufficiently strong working class movement to make this crisis the final crisis. For comparisons, see the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know this suggestion isn't going to be very popular, but the real answer is... we don't know. We can't go back and see what effect different levels of taxation and spending would have had. We can't see what difference it would make if Greece had not joined the Euro. The global economy is just too complicated for us to predict what effects these kinds of large-scale decisions will have (at least with our current level of understanding), which is why different economists and political leaders have such wildly different ideas about what the current problems are, and how to solve them. In Greece and elsewhere, some believe that austerity measures are the solution, while others think they are part of the problem. You can find lots of articles (like this one by Paul Krugman) explaining just how badly the field of economics failed to predict the recent global recession. If we can't even guess how well an economy will function from one year to the next, how can anybody claim that they know what effect the Euro has had on Greece's economy over the last decade? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greek national debt vs Eurozone average While we can't go back in time and do a controlled experiment, we can compare what has happened to different countries. Greece has very clearly come out of this crisis the worst, so what was different about Greece? As this chart shows, it consistently had much higher national debt than the rest of the Eurozone. When the recession hit, debt went up for everyone, but it went up far more in Greece, and became completely unaffordable. While we can't know exactly what caused the problems, it is not unreasonable to conclude that high debt levels before the crisis played a very significant role. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am tryimg to create the following time line and finding it very difficult. Can you please help me;
The date of the life of Adam (and Eve);
The date of the life of Noah;
The date of the life of Lot;
The date of the life of Abraham;
The date of the life of Isaac;
The date of the life of Jacob;
The date of the life of Moses, who lived to be 120 years old;
I am trying to creat my own line of history and this information is not readily available, accurately. I apprecviate
any help you can give me. Thank you
Sidmosh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidmosh (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that some of those characters are fictional, like Adam and Eve, while others may be real, like Moses. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve. Though, it must be acknowledged that Mitochondrial Eve is not the type of Eve as the first woman in the world and the contemporary of Adam, or even the wife of Adam. :P 140.254.227.51 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Years ago I read a sci-fi story about a dystopia where folks were drugged to think conditions were better than they really were and there were layers to the drugging. It was kinda outrageously written. I am wondering if it is Memoirs Found in a Bathtub or something else by Stanisław Lem but somehow I think not?? Thanks --Lyncs (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very similar story involves some characters stealing organs from each other: Known Space. I have never read the book; I just read about the synopsis after browsing wiki-related articles to anatomy. So, I can't say for sure whether or not it's the exact book you are searching for. Can you give a plotline or a quote? 140.254.227.51 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why do U.S. Presidents who owned slaves or in fact protected slavery are received with favor by historians? George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson are treated well by historians. For example, James K. Polk, who owned slaves, protected and expanded slavery, is treated well by historians for "getting the job done". While U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant, who briefly owned one slave and granted his freedom, who had defeated the Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy as General in Chief, gets vilified by historians. Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan in 1871, promoted the 15th Amendment to give voting rights to blacks, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Yet, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Polk get high praise from historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may explain the founding fathers, yet that seems like a rationalization for slavery's acceptance during the 18th and 19th centuries. Do modern historians then agree with the principles of slavery during Washington's and Jefferson's times or at least ignore the slavery issue when apprasing their respected Presidencies? Grant, although his image as President has improved, is treated like the lower ends of "human evolution", while Washington and Jefferson are enlighted and among the top U.S. Presidents. Why then do historians favor Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Polk over a President such as Grant? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at moral relativism, which means we can only judge people based on the standards of their time. For a more recent example, attitudes towards homosexuals are changing at present. So, if your grandparents think it should be illegal, does this make them horrible people, or just a product of an earlier generation ? StuRat (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both. History is written by those who win wars. I'm sure that history would look fondly on Hitler if Germany won World War 2. ScienceApe (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Hitler would be long dead by now, and fascism has difficulty surviving the death of leaders, like in Spain after Franco died. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One can praise a man for the good things he does, while condemning him for the bad. So, while Grant is praised by historians for his success as a General during the Civil War, he is criticized by historians for his failures as a President (especially for the blind eye he turned towards the rampant political corruption that existed in his administration). Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then is "moral relativism" a de facto acceptance of the institution of slavery by historians when evaluating slave owning Presidents? That does not explain the hatred towards Ulysses S. Grant as President by historians. Why the negativism towards Grant if history is moral relavitism? No historians apply moral relavitism to the Guilded AgeGilded Age, only slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an acceptance, any more than, in my example, judging your grandparents based on their generation's views would entail an endorsement of those views. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Gilded Age. Historians do not apply "moral relavitism" to the Gilded Age. Jefferson owner of hundreds of slaves is ranked in the top ten, by the way. Not bad for a President with a failed second term. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historians always point out corruption and fail to see reforms made by President Grant. Why? Sec. Bristow wiped out the Whiskey Ring and Grant ended the moiety system and was the first President to institute civil service reform. "Blind eye" is a harsh description of Ulysses S. Grant. So much for moral relativism. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this then create a double standard among historians? Turn a cold shoulder to the Gilded Age and give the light touch of moral relavitism to slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think one major problem is to view an historical figure as a simplistic, single thing. To say something like "anyone who ever owned slaves is evil and does not merit further analysis" is wrong-headed and simplistic. Abraham Lincoln participated in duels, and yet we don't call him an attempted murderer, a charge that would most likely be leveled against such an action today. We could go on like this forever, indicting every historical figure for doing something that we know today to be morally reprehensible. This does not make slavery right. However, it also means that we don't discount the contributions people like Jefferson made to the course of history, including setting the U.S. on the path to eventually end slavery, by instilling a sense of the universality of human rights in the ethos of the founding of America. This in no way excuses his owning of slaves, however the fact that he owned slaves does not make his contributions to the U.S. vis a vis the Declaration of Independence and other founding events simply disappear. The one does not make the other go away. Grant, by the way, had a presidential administration that was beset by cronyism and corruption, which is why he tends to be discounted. After all, Nixon opened trade with China and founded the Environmental Protection Agency, but he tends to be remembered for his corruption and the Watergate scandal. Again, we could play this game all day; if you are interested in the historiography of the U.S., that's great, but this is not the place to start an argument over that historiography. We're here to explain how it is, not defend one point of view or another. --Jayron3222:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A key point that perhaps you still seem to be missing is that moral relativism means you apply the standards of the time, not that you excuse everything. If corruption was not particularly acceptable among the president's administration and perhaps not even as common among other many or most other administrations then moral relativism doesn't in any way imply it's okay because it was a long time ago. (And if corruption wasn't so bad before, but he lead in a big increase in corruption, it's difficult to ignore that because of moral relativism, similarly if you lead to big increase in slavery, you're not likely to be looked on that favourably even if at the time it wasn't seen that bad.) Our article also notes several other failings during his time as president, most of which don't sound things that were particularly okay at the time (e.g. annexation may have been more acceptable, but trying but failing to annex still likely wasn't). Our article also notes that he's often more highly rated nowadays because of increasing importance being given to the things you mentioned in your first post. Also owning slaves is more of a 'personal failing' then a failure as a president (it may have sent the wrong impression but that's about it). By the standards of our time, it may be an extremely major personal failure but that doesn't really change the fact it was something on a personal level. Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Edit: Not knowing much about US history, my impression from reading the USG article is he was widely seen as a failed president because a lot of the stuff he did, allowed or at least didn't manage to stop or failed to do is seen to have had a strongly negative effect; and historicly most of the good stuff he did (as president) was viewed as too minor to be significant; but this is changing. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery then is not viewed as corrupt by historians. I am not attempting to argue the institution of slavery, rather, access how historians view slavery in terms of their analysis of Presidents of the United States. Watergate and the Whiskey Ring are viewed a corrupt by historians, but slavery is not. The only explanation why historians favor slave owning Presidents is that they do not believe slavery as a corrupt institution. Is this true? Grant did good things in his administration but is only known for his corruption. One can even say that concering Richard Nixon. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery was widespread back then, but by Nixon's time, government corruption, at least to that extent, was not commonplace (or, if it was, the public didn't know about it before then). StuRat (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corruption was wide spread during the Gilded Age througout the U.S., but moral relavitism some how does not apply. Grant made efforts to stop corruption, but these efforts are often ignored by historians. Thanks for everyone who has responded to this query! Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lazy to respond further except to note when it comes to leaders, results then to matter more then best intentions. Whatever Grant tried to do about corruption, the consensus appears to be he failed absymally. As I noted, the corruption during the gilded age seems to have partially started with Grant (i.e. not a good sign), and I don't see much evidence it was considered acceptable, even if wide spread. To be blunt, it sounds like you still don't understand how moral relativism works. Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of thing was well-stated by Kenneth Davis in Don't Know Much About the Civil War: "By today's standards, Lincoln was a racist. But by standards of his day, he was a liberal." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how "moral relativism" works. Washington and Jefferson protected slavery as Presidents under federal law because slavery was legal; a system of buying and selling people, whipping them, breaking up their families, breaking up their heritage, forcing them to work in the fields, keeping them in poverty and uneducated, without any rights as human beings nor hope of freedom, except at the mercy of their "kind hearted" masters. Yes. That is not corruption, only a personal choice by the Presidents. Yes. I do understand how moral relativism works. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Washington was considered a great leader in terms of establishing the USA. No man is without sin or without flaws. When Nixon died, Kissinger said of his former boss, "He made many mistakes and had many achievements." Every leader everywhere could be labeled that way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to look up radical and socialist historians' approaches to US history. In particular, the journal Radical History and the book Howard Zinn A People's History of the United States.Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One could say a slavery dynasty that lasted until James Buchanan. Grant ended the vestiges of slavery in the country and he has been vilified for "corruption". President Andrew Johnson, who totally disregarded enforcing the U.S. Constitional and Congressional law does not get as much flack or hatred from Historians as Grant does. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Cmguy777, it is plain that you are here just to push this little pet theory of yours. You are clearly and plainly here for affirmation and not information. Fine. If we all agree that Grant is the best President ever, and that every president who owned slaves was morally bankrupt and that every act they ever commited is invalidated for that reason, if we all concede that, can we just let it go? Is that enough affirmation for you? Because you clearly aren't here to get an answer to a question you don't know. You just want to make yourself feel morally superior because you hold the Keys to the Truth. Fine, you're right, everyone else is wrong. Are you happy now? --Jayron3201:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, I have never stated Grant was the greatest President and this is not any personal affirmation dialogue. My original question concerned was whether historians favor slave holding Presidents in terms of evaluating their individual Presidencies. From this conversation I conclude that historians do not view slavery as corruption as compared to the Gilded Age, and therefore Washington and Jefferson are rated higher then other Presidents. The discussion was historically valuable. I am in no position to be morally superior to any other editor on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grant was president during Reconstruction. The low state of his repute, especially compared to Johnson is probably a residue of the once-dominant Dunning School historiography. If history is written by the victors, then for a long time, who was the victor in the Civil War? So your title has much truth in it.John Z (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corruption usually involves illegal stuff, like bribery. Slavery was legal in their home state of Virginia when Washington and Jefferson were in office. Historians favor them for their leadership and accomplishments, not because they owned slaves. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any corruption can be legalized. That is not my point. In my opinion historians do not believe slavery was a corrupt institution, legal or illegal. That is why they are kind to the Founding Fathers. I am not denying that Washington and Jefferson started a nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Fifelfoo was saying was not that you or the topic were radical or socialist, but that there are historians who have spoken quite a lot about this in the terms you'd like them to. Howard Zinn's work in particular is a good place to turn if you want to see this. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historians, if one can generalize for quite a large field of differing opinions (a field of which I am a card-carrying member), are rarely single-issue voters. They do largely rate people by the values of their times, but you are completely wrong in suggesting that they have given the Founder's a free pass on slavery. Many, many volumes have been written grappling with the ways in which the American Revolution was only about a very selective notion of freedom. So you are just wrong on that point.
As for why Grant or others don't get higher markers just because they were on the right side of an issue — again, it's a factor, but for someone like Grant, it is less remarkable that he owned no slaves in his time than it is remarkable that someone like Jefferson or Washington did own slaves. Large Southern landowners and businessmen in the 18th century owned slaves, as a rule; people who lived in the North in the late 19th century did not own slaves, as a rule. So these are, by themselves, not terribly interesting qualities. What is interesting about Washington and Jefferson is that they put down a lot of interesting and important words about human freedom even as they owned human beings. And, again, you are completely wrong in suggesting that historians have ignored that. But Grant gets no more credit than any other random Northern person for not owning slaves. His presidency is judged on many, many other factors, and what stands out chief among them are the petty corruption of his government. But history is, again, a wide field, and there are plenty of pro-Grant historians out there, and historical evaluations of presidents change over time (Eisenhower used to be viewed as a fool; now he's viewed as more savvy). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery was a thorny issue even when the Constitution was written. They could have dealt with it then and there, by creating two countries, but they wanted to create a single nation, figuring the combined entity would be stronger. Slaves are referenced in the original Constitution as "certain persons". They weren't necessarily proud of it, but it was a fact of life. As westward expansion occurred, the slavery issue became more acute, as the South did not want to be "boxed in". The two Presidents just prior to Lincoln were totally worthless on the matter. But we have no way to know, if Washington and Jefferson were alive in 1861, which side of the issue they would have fallen on. So it's unfair to judge them as somehow "corrupt" for doing what everyone else did. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grant set free his one and only slave rather then sell his slave. In a sense Grant purchased his freedom. My query concerns Presidencies. Grant destroys the Ku Klux Klan using the military and the Justice Department, the only President to do so, and historians had put his Presidency as a footnote because of corruption charges. I agree that more historians are giving Grant credit. Grant, in a sense, was forced to finish the job of Reconstruction, since Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson refused to enforce federal and constitutional laws protecting freedmen. I acknowledge there was corruption during the Gilded age. Yet no "moral relavitism" is applied to that Gilded age, only slavery and the Founding Fathers does one approach moral relavitism. Historians for whatever reason(s) do not view slavery as corruption. Grant kept America out of two wars with Britain (Alabama Claims) and Spain (Virginius Incident), implemented America's first peace policy with Indians, and lauched the Polaris expedition to get America to the North Pole. Yet, corruption always dominates historical analysis of Grant's Presidency, no moral relavitism is applied. Historians have every right to believe slavery is not a corrupt institution, yet, that explains why Washington and Jefferson get high presidential rankings. I am not bashing Washington and Jefferson or any other slave holding President. Washington and Jefferson were great men and had many accomplishments in starting the United States. My concern is there is a double standard with historians concerning moral relavitism. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a quote once: "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there." (L.P. Hartley) It is a mistake to judge the actions of people in history by the morals of the present. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can look at Radical History and the book by Howard Zinn A People's History of the United States for clarification. My concern is that moral relavitism is only implemented for slavery and the Founding Fathers not for Grant and the Gilded Age. In my opinion, that is a double standard used by historians to promote slave owning Presidents in terms of historical analysis. Again thanks for all who participated in this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just that the founding fathers are being given a pass (as noted, they by-and-large aren't), but when being judged on what they did in the political sphere, they tend to be judged more favorably because they did better. Grant isn't given "a pass" because the stuff that went wrong was stuff that went wrong in the government and on his watch. As in, the stuff that makes historians downgrade Grant as a president was the stuff that he did in exercising the office of President. It is kinda hard to overlook that in the assessment. When judging someone like Madison or Washington, the actions they commited through their office were generally good, so they get better marks as Presidents. It doesn't mean they were better people. Take a more modern example: Look at someone like Jimmy Carter. He was, by all accounts, an abysmal President, and yet as a person he is viewed as one of the U.S.'s most upstanding former leaders. Good person, bad President. The one is not necessarily connected to the other. So we can find slavery abhorrant, but still judge what the Founding Fathers did as politicians as distinct. That is the difference. It isn't that we give them a pass as people, its that we judge the actions they took as political leaders and say "these actions were highly important for the U.S." and look at the actions of someone like Grant and say "Well, what he did as President left something to be desired". Sure, his term had its good moments, but on the balance, there have been far better Presidents. Grant, in fact, ushered in a period of political shenanigans and back-room dealings that really only cleared out with the Progressive Era of the early 20th century (i.e. Rutherford B. Hayes, machine politics, etc.) --Jayron3222:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that if there were positive proof that James Buchanan was gay, there would be those who would celebrate him and others who would denigrate him. But whether he was gay or straight, whether he was morally good, bad or indifferent, he was still worthless as president. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, Grant did many good things for the country that have seldom got noticed or mentioned. He ended the vestiges of slavery, where as Washington and Jefferson protected slavery. That's where historians differ on whether slavery was corruption. In averting two wars Grant actually got signifigant reparations for the Alabama Claims and Virginius incident and ushered in an era of statesmanship diplomacy. Grant started Civil Service reform, something Washington of Jefferson did not do. Grant kept the Union from disolving in the controversial election of 1876, something that rarely gets mentioned by historians. Grant won passage of the 15th Amendment giving voting rights to freedman and signed Civil Rights Bill. Oh yeah, Yellowstone National Park is in his pocket too. Yes. Grant had his scandals, no doubt and these deserve full attention from historians. The main difference is that as has been mentioned before historians do not view slavery as corruption. Slaves were counted as 3/4 persons so Southerners could gain representation without having blacks vote. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry it happens (although I don't think I've ever posted with that specific sort of misconception). Just last week I was wondering why people were talking so much about poor editor behaviour and article problems on the RD when I realised I was at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
