Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

historynewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 128 posts

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#31

Post by roarcher »

Atlas667 wrote: post #25
roarcher wrote: post #5

It's obviously true that nobody achieves things in a vacuum, since we all have some level of "privilege" given to us by our economic circumstances, the level of education available to us, our luckier heritable traits, etc. But for every successful person, there are countless others born to a similar level of privilege who squandered it. The claim that everyone owes their successes to the group ignores this.

If you were to truly do a science of people would you not take into account all of the circumstances that person was in, in order to understand them? You say: "One achieved it, but the other person in similar circumstances didn't achieve it" Well how do their circumstances differ? Don't you think it's important how they differ? Actually, couldn't how they differ be the key? Why, then, do you draw the line at an incom…

What level of analysis would you consider "complete"? Certainly if we accounted for every neuron in their brain we could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter produced the thoughts and actions that led to their success, and whatever external events produced that configuration. But then we would be at a level of analysis that regards us all as automatons, where nobody, including the group, is accountable for anything at all. This may or may not be technically correct, but I would argue that it is not useful. The question of who gets "credit" for an achievement would be entirely moot, as would the achievement itself and everything else any human has ever done.

I would think the correct level of analysis for this conversation is the lowest one that still allows people to be accountable for their own actions. Lower than that, and the central question of this thread is irrelevant.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#32

Post by Atlas667 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #22
Atlas667 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, facts make it necessarily both. But what does that mean? What is attribution? What is ownership? How does our legal framework work? How does the media speak about reality? The reason for "great men" isn't that its true, it's that that's how our society is structured. These ideas come from how our property is structured. If a person can own as much wealth as millions and the media is on their side; great men exis…

Is that the traditional meaning of 'great' in "great men theory"? If so, why not just say "strong men" or "powerful men" instead?

> Is that the traditional meaning of 'great' in "great men theory"?

It isn't, though I may be tangentially speaking about Great Man Theory, I wasn't focusing on it.

> If so, why not just say "strong men" or "powerful men" instead?

I thought using "great men" gives space for virtue and a spiritual/intellectual worth, not just a morally ambiguous "power".

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#33

Post by Telemakhos »

roarcher wrote: post #5

It's obviously true that nobody achieves things in a vacuum, since we all have some level of "privilege" given to us by our economic circumstances, the level of education available to us, our luckier heritable traits, etc. But for every successful person, there are countless others born to a similar level of privilege who squandered it. The claim that everyone owes their successes to the group ignores this.

The degree to which an individual is responsible for his own success, and the degree to which fortune enables it, is as old as time. In ancient Greek philosophy (and poetry), a person's life is divided into soul, body, and fortune: one exerts control over one's soul and body, but not over one's fortune, the sum total of things external to him, such as his family and friends and money. Virtues reside in the soul, and external blessings like wealth and the support of others outside the body, and the ancient Greeks were clear in this distinction, of which both halves are necessary but insufficient to achieve great benefits for one's people. Hence the idea that happiness is the exercise of vital powers along lines of virtue within a life affording them scope: the "lines of virtue" are internal elements of character, but "a life affording them scope" is the external support necessary. A virtuous hermit living in poverty alone on an island and a ruinously depraved criminal in the midst of civilization, the one virtuous but lacking fortune and the other fortunate but lacking virtue, are equally ill-suited to achieving great benefits for mankind.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#34

Post by cratermoon »

rayiner wrote: post #27
ramesh31 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The correct answer to that question is "they don't Read the list and try to find a single non-WASP family: https://www.forbes.com/families/list/

The very first example on your list is the Walton family. Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, grew up in nowhere Oklahoma as the child of farmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton . Show me where it says his wealth was built on your “WASP slavery money?”

Do you know anything about how Oklahoma was colonized by white farmers?

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#35

Post by watwut »

roarcher wrote: post #5

It's obviously true that nobody achieves things in a vacuum, since we all have some level of "privilege" given to us by our economic circumstances, the level of education available to us, our luckier heritable traits, etc. But for every successful person, there are countless others born to a similar level of privilege who squandered it. The claim that everyone owes their successes to the group ignores this.

I have seen quite a few Americans saying "nobody ever gave me anything" while they were literally from upper class and their parents/families gave them a lot. And actually most people who are born rich stay rich. Some do squander it, but it takes a lot more effort to squander stuff for them then for someone who starts poor.

The "failing upwards" is an actual thing and who is around you massively influences whether you are failing upwards or downwards.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#36

Post by roarcher »

watwut wrote: post #35
roarcher wrote: post #5

It's obviously true that nobody achieves things in a vacuum, since we all have some level of "privilege" given to us by our economic circumstances, the level of education available to us, our luckier heritable traits, etc. But for every successful person, there are countless others born to a similar level of privilege who squandered it. The claim that everyone owes their successes to the group ignores this.

I have seen quite a few Americans saying "nobody ever gave me anything" while they were literally from upper class and their parents/families gave them a lot. And actually most people who are born rich stay rich. Some do squander it, but it takes a lot more effort to squander stuff for them then for someone who starts poor. The "failing upwards" is an actual thing and who is around you massively influences whether yo…

I only argued that legitimate cases of individual achievement exist. The fact that trust fund babies also exist does not contradict that.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#37

Post by watwut »

anon291 wrote: post #30
Atlas667 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, facts make it necessarily both. But what does that mean? What is attribution? What is ownership? How does our legal framework work? How does the media speak about reality? The reason for "great men" isn't that its true, it's that that's how our society is structured. These ideas come from how our property is structured. If a person can own as much wealth as millions and the media is on their side; great men exis…

Many kings were strong and admirable. Not sure why you are so down on individual kings even if monarchy is not a great system of governance and prone to tyranny. Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues. Ascribing only vices (chopping hea…

> Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues.

Are you having some concrete historical personalities in mind or are you actually just making up imaginary kings who simultaneously created a common legal framework, fought against invaders while not invading others, eased commers and also enhanced "human flourishing"? And did all that while other people in kingdom and surrounding kingdoms were basically unimportant to all that and the king was the center person to all of that?

Cause I am going to argue that whatever benefits and disadvantages of monarchy, your king is imaginary. Despite being powerful, kings were very much limited by what went on around them and what they could not control.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#38

Post by Atlas667 »

roarcher wrote: post #31
Atlas667 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to truly do a science of people would you not take into account all of the circumstances that person was in, in order to understand them? You say: "One achieved it, but the other person in similar circumstances didn't achieve it" Well how do their circumstances differ? Don't you think it's important how they differ? Actually, couldn't how they differ be the key? Why, then, do you draw the line at an incom…

What level of analysis would you consider "complete"? Certainly if we accounted for every neuron in their brain we could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter produced the thoughts and actions that led to their success, and whatever external events produced that configuration. But then we would be at a level of analysis that regards us all as automatons, where nobody, including the group,…

> could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter

Even if we could do that it would not "reduce" any personal value. I think these are biases you may have. Accountability can be defined, even in that total view.

And right now, even in the incomplete view that we have, it is defined socially and politically. And that's what my real take is:

That the ideas that most people have of self, person-hood, achievement, merit and value, are political ideas.They are not necessarily true/accurate ideas. They serve a political purpose.

> What level of analysis would you consider "complete"?

We can go further than what we have now. In fact I think we MUST go further in order to make the world a better place.

Our current analysis is really just a cheap political tool that serves to preserve a sort of caste-system, most employed for classism and racism. That vague notion that "some people are just different" is the base for many political violations.

If anything the ideal, final form of what I am saying is this: Real Incorruptible Democracy.

So we don't need a scientific model describing of a persons thoughts in real, chemical, atomic detail, we need a world that can take peoples individual circumstance into real political consideration and action.

This could be what a real science of people is.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#39

Post by watwut »

rayiner wrote: post #6
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Go back a few generations for just about every wealthy family in the US, and it's nothing but slave (or highly exploitative) labor building on land and resources stolen from the indians. It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?". The whole "self-made" myth is nothing but a byproduct of white guilt all the way down.

Native Americans were here for tens of thousands of years. If it was so easy to use Indians’ resources to build a civilization, why didn’t the Indians do it? Your attitude is illogical cope. How could “WASPs” have gotten rich from stealing from a group of people they vastly outnumbered and who were primitive in comparison?

They had own civilization. They lost war and were genocided out. And for the record, they had wars against themselves too, just like Europeans had wars against other Europeans.

Both slavery and territorial expansion by force were wealth builders. Both took quite a lot of time too. Both were quite barbaric from our point of view, but cruelty and violence can be wealth builder. After all, Putin is super wealthy too. Stalin ended up wealthy too. Hitler same deal. There is not much difference in there.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#40

Post by mc32 »

rimbo789 wrote: post #12
rayiner wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Native Americans were here for tens of thousands of years. If it was so easy to use Indians’ resources to build a civilization, why didn’t the Indians do it? Your attitude is illogical cope. How could “WASPs” have gotten rich from stealing from a group of people they vastly outnumbered and who were primitive in comparison?

Given all the raping, enslaving, pillaging, and general genociding europeans did upon arrival to North America I don’t think we can say it was the First Nations that were “primitive”

The local tribes were mostly one of two types, the nomadic (ex. Comanche) and the agricultural (Apache). The former would often raid the latter, killing many of the men and taking the women and children --often, but not always, they'd end up being their slaves. So the behavior of the Europeans you describe of the time was not out of the ordinary for the locals.
Post reply on HN