Applying contemporary moral standards to historical figures?

Post Reply New Topic

I know Rothbard is regarded as a fringe thinker. I'm curious as to why you would care about my reaction to him.

Anyways, my library has these books of Rothbard's:
America's Great Depression
For A New Liberty : The Libertarian Manifesto
The Great Depression And New Deal Monetary Policy
The Panic Of 1819: Reactions And Policies.
Power & Market; Government And The Economy

And a crapload of articles by him. Basically any journal article or newspaper editorial he's written should be accessible. I don't have much particular interest in any of his writings, but if you recommend something I might read (or at least skim) it.

Well, have you ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel? Diamond was just completely pulling stuff out of his ass for that book.

What would be the cutoff mark to where chronologically-borderline individuals like Adolph Hitler would just be regarded as "a product of their age?" Not that Hitler was justified or anything, but his anti-semitism/hyper-nationalist leanings were far more "within bounds" of the political and social culture of his time.

In the pre-WW2 years, Churchill sometimes spoke admiringly of Hitler, but he often seemed to have nothing but revulsion for Bolshevism.
Of course, Churchill was himself racist by today's standards.
.

Well, have you ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel? Diamond was just completely pulling stuff out of his ass for that book.

What was specifically wrong with it? I read it some time ago, and remember thinking that the general premise of geographical distribution accounting for the relative successes and failures of various cultures seemed pretty intuitive. I'll freely admit do being a dilettante and a dabbler when it comes to non-weapons related history, so I'd really like to know where Diamond went astray.

From what I remember of the preamble, he was trying to debunk the idea that "primitive" peoples were any less naturally intelligent than other races, not hold them up as superior.

What was specifically wrong with it? I read it some time ago, and remember thinking that the general premise of geographical distribution accounting for the relative successes and failures of various cultures seemed pretty intuitive. I'll freely admit do being a dilettante and a dabbler when it comes to non-weapons related history, so I'd really like to know where Diamond went astray.

From what I remember of the preamble, he was trying to debunk the idea that "primitive" peoples were any less naturally intelligent than other races, not hold them up as superior.

It's been a while since I read it, but I'll give you what I remember:
1) The idea is not new or original in the least. It's just a fancy repackaging of old notions of geographical determinism, though Diamond vociferously denies this]

2) It's hard for me to remember specific details so long after reading it, but he was simply wrong on several matters of fact, things that could easily have been checked and corrected if he had bothered to do any real background research. I recall being particularly annoyed when he claimed that kuru was caused by a virus—for someone with such a huge Fore obsession as he has, that's a pretty inexcusable mistake. A lot of the claims he put forward as established fact were really quite speculative and on very tenuous ground. Just in general, it's hard to trust his credibility. He contradicts himself at times.

3) His claims that Eurasia is aligned east-west and the Americas are aligned north-south as one of the major deciding factors in cultural development? Seriously? I know you've seen a map of the USA. We have east-west space to work with. And the geographical boundaries in crossing Eurasia are not as trivial as Diamond likes to pretend. And a sample size of two? It is way too big a stretch to draw any sort of causal relationship there.

4) Even if you grant all his "evidence" (much of which is rather dubious, as explained in 2) his conclusions are rather big leaps from that evidence.

That is what he claimed to be doing, and I was interested in seeing what case he would make. But instead of making the sort of case I would have expected, he just launched into a racist screed. Go ahead and re-read it if you don't believe me. He claims that Europeans are genetically inferior to, and less intelligent than, the Fore people of New Guinea. He uses the same BS, data-deficient "reasoning" to make this case that traditional racists use to claim that blacks are inferior to whites. It is despicable when they make such arguments; it is just as bad when Diamond makes the same argument in reverse.


Now, the idea that geography has important implications for a civilization—that I can accept, and it is an interesting question to explore to what extent geography has affected history. But Diamond does a really lousy job of it.

Meh. I think not knowing the difference between a virus and a prion is a small thing for such a big book.

I don't think he said any such thing! I did not get that at all from the book or the movie.

and put all cultural differences to the random circumstances of geography. And I think he made a good case for it.

This is an interesting and important question. I'm surprised at you, Hanotaux.

It is difficult to determine when the appropriate "cut-off" point would be, or exactly when you begin to introduce anachronisms by judging historical characters by modern standards. It largely has to go on a case-by-case basis. Hitler's actions were certainly reprehensible by the standards of his time, and probably by the standards of almost any time. There was a segment of society that recognized slavery as morally reprehensible in the 17th and 18th centuries, though I think most of them still likely held to some notions of superiority and inferiority. There was definitely a vocal anti-slavery movement in 18th-century England.

I agree. Hitler was regarded as criminal in his own time and could not a get a free pass just because of the age he lived in ( which wasnt that long ago).

But where it gets interesting would be some of his contempararies. Public figures like Charles Lindberg and Paul Robeson who are still regarded as heroes. The former was an admirer of Hitler, the later an admirer of Stalin.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/LloydGeorge.htm

PRIME MINISTER OF ENGLAND DURING WORLD WAR I

COMMENTS ON HIS VISIT TO GERMANY AND MEETING WITH HITLER IN 1936

(Daily Express, September 17, 1936)

I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.

He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany.

It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war - broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.

There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.

One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, as resolute will and a dauntless heart.

He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.

The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him an unchallenged authority in modern Germany.

As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondence and degradation.

To those who have actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany, this description may appear extravagant. All the same it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks the to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany.

That impression more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to the new Germany. There was a revivalist atmosphere. It had an extraordinary effect in unifying the nation.

Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men.

No it doesn't. Diamond is a hack, and that book is a pile of poorly-researched nonsense.

And how is it "neutral?" Half of the introduction to that book is his rambling case that Europeans are genetically inferior to Pacific Islanders. What a load of crap.

Does anyone have any theories to explain why Diamond who writes a book arguing for the innate intellectual inferiority of Europeans is so celebrated whereas people like JP Rushton and Richard Lynn who present a more flattering view of Europeans are at best ignored or at worst vilified?
Does anyone have any theories to explain why a white man like Diamond would want to write such a book in the first place?

Where did Jared Diamond argue for the intellectual superiority of Europeans? He argued against the notion that Europeans were intellectually superior to the folks in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Europeans had some material factors in their environment that launched them on their imperialist and colonialist courses of action.

ruveyn

This is one of those rare instances where I agree with something Orwell says.

Does anyone have any theories to explain why Diamond who writes a book arguing for the innate intellectual inferiority of Europeans is so celebrated whereas people like JP Rushton and Richard Lynn who present a more flattering view of Europeans are at best ignored or at worst vilified?

Does anyone have any theories to explain why a white man like Diamond would want to write such a book in the first place?