5 ms·

However, historical relativism really only makes sense when we live in a different moral world. At the risk of sounding cliched, our political-moral lens was l

However, historical relativism really only makes sense when we live in a different moral world. At the risk of sounding cliched, our political-moral lens was largely crystallised by the French Revolution, where ideas of universal equality really emerged as a political force. We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. Until something like that happens again, we will probably always look at Hitler as a historical bogeyman. Also there’s the problem that Hitler didn’t revitalise the economy in as much as he gave the industrialists a temporary victory over social democratic labour unions. Germany was an economic juggernaut in the late 19th century; Hitler wasn’t even that important in ending the massive monetary imbalance caused by the treaty of Versailles, that was a process that was happening anyway. What Hitler did do was murder every remaining dissident trade unionist in the name of the Volk. Germany’s economy was going to grow anyway, Hitler just crushed the moderate socialists only to see all the gains of the 30s looted by Stalin.

chmod775 6y ago
> We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. The difference you are seeing is assigning blame to a country that exists today (not people, everyone alive then is already dead now), and implying it has a lasting responsibility to make things right today. Being a critic of actions of a nation with no continuity today is completely pointless. You can be against a type of behavior, but criticizing a specific instance of it with no connection to the present is pointless, except when using it as an example. In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date.
- sonthonax 6y ago
  > I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours weren’t rewarded in the afterlife. You probably couldn’t debate Cesar about the morality of slavery, he simply wouldn’t understand you. > In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the Romans). > It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date. Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They’re certainly not current, and all have enormously different moral viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but none are ‘expired’. When you read these you get a first hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians, which is as important to our civilisation’s development as the past itself. History is as much the study of the past as it is the study of history itself.
rgblambda 6y ago
>We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves The Roman Senate absolutely did. Caesar was to be put on trial for the atrocities he perpetrated, which is why he decided to seize power in the first place.
- sonthonax 6y ago
  That’s true, but it wasn’t the enslaving itself they took issue with. It was his provocations of a historical foe, the breach of treaties, and the dictatorial power he accumulated by doing so. His critics like Cato weren’t abolitionists, if it was to him, the plebeians might have been slaves too (exaggeration).

chmod775 6y ago

> We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. The difference you are seeing is assigning blame to a country that exists today (not people, everyone alive then is already dead now), and implying it has a lasting responsibility to make things right today. Being a critic of actions of a nation with no continuity today is completely pointless. You can be against a type of behavior, but criticizing a specific instance of it with no connection to the present is pointless, except when using it as an example. In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date.

sonthonax 6y ago
> I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours weren’t rewarded in the afterlife. You probably couldn’t debate Cesar about the morality of slavery, he simply wouldn’t understand you. > In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the Romans). > It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date. Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They’re certainly not current, and all have enormously different moral viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but none are ‘expired’. When you read these you get a first hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians, which is as important to our civilisation’s development as the past itself. History is as much the study of the past as it is the study of history itself.

rgblambda 6y ago

>We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves The Roman Senate absolutely did. Caesar was to be put on trial for the atrocities he perpetrated, which is why he decided to seize power in the first place.

sonthonax 6y ago
That’s true, but it wasn’t the enslaving itself they took issue with. It was his provocations of a historical foe, the breach of treaties, and the dictatorial power he accumulated by doing so. His critics like Cato weren’t abolitionists, if it was to him, the plebeians might have been slaves too (exaggeration).