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

71–80 of 128 posts

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

#71

Post by Atlas667 »

pdonis wrote: post #66
Atlas667 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As is the idea that everyone is an interchangeable unit of labor, all producing the same outputs if only they were given the same inputs. Agreed. That's why I don't believe in that. And actually that's kind of what I'm criticizing: the fake science used to judge peoples behavior. But I do know we're way WAY more similar than our cultures would have us believe. > I don't know what you mean by this, but I am highly s…

> I'm saying we can devise a political system that is incorruptible. Please show your work. All human history says this can't be done.

Could cryptographic voting/blockchain, which is already a reality, be a part of this new system?

I believe it will, or something similar at least.

But I am a programmer, not a cryptographer. I'm not THE guy. I'm just some random bloke trying to think about something other than making money.

if this is a possibility then we as a people should start taking it seriously. Get open source standards, software and hardware (open chips) and put it to practice.

Though I'm sure the rich would hate this. So would anyone else who has a lot to gain from controlling public offices.

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

#73

Post by cyberax »

card_zero wrote: post #70
cyberax wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "good kings" are: 1. The ones that are long dead. 2. The ones that have their head chopped off. 3. The ones that don't actually have a lot of power. > 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. "Good kings" did not "provide protec…

Many of the long dead ones did good things. In a manner of speaking there shouldn't have been kings in the past, but we can extend that statement to say that the past should have been modern times, which it couldn't be. Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Charlemagne, then, who (at least in his capacity as a cultural focal point) standardized Latin and founded schools and refo…

> which it couldn't be.

And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense?

If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and influence but accidentally ended up being a positive influence.

Regarding Charlemagne, right in the Wikipedia:

> Charlemagne's reign was one of near-constant warfare, participating in annual campaigns, many led personally.

> Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected.

Then why do we worry about slavery, colonialism, racism, and so on?

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

#74

Post by card_zero »

cyberax wrote: post #73
card_zero wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the long dead ones did good things. In a manner of speaking there shouldn't have been kings in the past, but we can extend that statement to say that the past should have been modern times, which it couldn't be. Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Charlemagne, then, who (at least in his capacity as a cultural focal point) standardized Latin and founded schools and refo…

> which it couldn't be. And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense? If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and inf…

Fair point, it would have been physically possible to suddenly implement the electronic age in the 800s. So it could have been, technically, but this is a lot to expect from people steeped in their times.

I don't know why we worry about historical bad deeds, and seek reparations from people's descendents. If the idea is "I should have been born into better circumstances" - well, the meaning of "should" there is very complicated, in how it relates to blame and justice. More generally, we worry about the past bad deeds by modern standards just to assert what our standards are.

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

#76

Post by alex1138 »

rayiner wrote: post #55
watwut wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. St…

> Both slavery and territorial expansion by force were wealth builders. It’s mathematically impossible for American settlers as a group to have become wealthy by expropriating wealth from Indians. Individual Indians had almost nothing—they were hunter gatherers with a small number of subsistence farmers. Nor did they have much wealth in the aggregate—their population was quite small even pre-contact. The America popu…

However, I think the Spanish can certainly be blamed

Some incredibly harrowing stories in Wade Davis's One River

There is also a chance some of the disease giving unto the native americans was by accident, not intentional

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

#77

Post by b800h »

dang wrote: post #60

This is an interesting historical article but the thread so far is too shallow (i.e. reacting only to one controversial phrase in the title), generic (i.e. disengaged from any of the interesting details in the article), and ideological. Generic ideological tangents make for lame and repetitive threads ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... ). I've replaced the title with the subtitle in the…

Thank you!

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

#78

Post by cyberax »

card_zero wrote: post #74
cyberax wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which it couldn't be. And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense? If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and inf…

Fair point, it would have been physically possible to suddenly implement the electronic age in the 800s. So it could have been, technically, but this is a lot to expect from people steeped in their times. I don't know why we worry about historical bad deeds, and seek reparations from people's descendents. If the idea is "I should have been born into better circumstances" - well, the meaning of "should" there is very…

Nope. I'm not talking about technical advances.

How about abolishing slavery? A representative government? Right to a fair trial?

> I don't know why we worry about historical bad deeds, and seek reparations from people's descendents.

The idea is that some things are just bad and can't be excused by mere history. It doesn't mean that we should automatically pay reparations, but it DOES mean that pretty much all historical leaders should be considered tainted.

Charlemagne is not a great king that united France and made sure education prospered. He was a warmonger who accidentally ended up improving education. And so on.

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

#79

Post by card_zero »

cyberax wrote: post #78
card_zero wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, it would have been physically possible to suddenly implement the electronic age in the 800s. So it could have been, technically, but this is a lot to expect from people steeped in their times. I don't know why we worry about historical bad deeds, and seek reparations from people's descendents. If the idea is "I should have been born into better circumstances" - well, the meaning of "should" there is very…

Nope. I'm not talking about technical advances. How about abolishing slavery? A representative government? Right to a fair trial? > I don't know why we worry about historical bad deeds, and seek reparations from people's descendents. The idea is that some things are just bad and can't be excused by mere history. It doesn't mean that we should automatically pay reparations, but it DOES mean that pretty much all histor…

Much the same applies to moral advances, like other ideas they're produced by the zeitgeist rather than "made from whole cloth". So it's a valid defense to say that they didn't know any better. What purpose does considering them tainted serve? They're bad by modern standards, yes, and good by historical standards, and we ourselves are bad by future standards.

So what is this even about, something to do with level of respect? Throwing the statue of Big Charlie into the Seine, maybe, because he belongs to the past when everybody's morality was, in the light of our present wisdom, rotten?

I rather think it's good to praise the most enlightened assholes of the past. Sort of like sticking terrible toddler paintings to the fridge.

Re-reading: you might be questioning how much credit is due to the king himself, and to what extent he's a figurehead. But if the good ideas are due to the culture really, it's still the figurehead who represents the culture, and "the culture" would make a very abstract and confusing statue.

Re-thinking: you might also be saying that any celebration of even a long-dead king might really be jingoism. But then I think it's the jingoism itself that should be done away with, not the celebration.

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

#80

Post by anonymous908213 »

cyberax wrote: post #73
card_zero wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the long dead ones did good things. In a manner of speaking there shouldn't have been kings in the past, but we can extend that statement to say that the past should have been modern times, which it couldn't be. Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Charlemagne, then, who (at least in his capacity as a cultural focal point) standardized Latin and founded schools and refo…

> which it couldn't be. And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense? If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and inf…

> If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better.

If you study modern politics, then you'll notice how preciously few people are focused on making the lives of regular people better. I don't actually believe, if you were to do a deep dive on all of the kings of the past few hundred years and not just the most famous ones, that the ratio would be meaningfully worse. I do suspect fame will negatively correlate with "goodness", since people who do their job quietly are less notable than people who cause a commotion.

Post reply on HN