I don't mean to get even further off topic, but there must be a vast difference between the way American history is taught in Canada versus the United States. Though it might vary from one school system to another (as it does in the United States itself). If I remember correctly, Washington tried to restrain expansion into the west. Which, by the way, we didn't "own" yet, so let's not be so quick to throw around the G word, shall we? It was not until Thomas Jefferson that the Louisiana Purchase was made; and even long after that before the land we now "owned" was eventually settled. It was likely later presidents and congresses who dealt dishonestly with the American Indians (to put it very, very mildly).

Now let's get off this rant about Washington as it seems to be eating up space without any sound conclusions toward the Big Picture on this one (what makes a ruler good or bad). And I suppose we can agree to disagree that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I won't ever convince you of that, no matter how obvious it may seem to me that you're trying to judge Washington by two different standards simultaneously when you speak of Slavery. I'm not mocking you, but it was quite hilarious when you said he did nothing for women's suffrage (or rights). Your own country did not extend the vote to women until just before ours did (19th amendment ratified in 1920 in the United States, and the UK gave the vote to women at about the same time as well, 1920-ish).

I think by getting bogged down in Washington we're ignoring the big picture here.

hacker

I don't mean to get even further off topic, but there must be a vast difference between the way American history is taught in Canada versus the United States. Though it might vary from one school system to another (as it does in the United States itself). If I remember correctly, Washington tried to restrain expansion into the west. Which, by the way, we didn't "own" yet, so let's not be so quick to throw around the G word, shall we?

There are romantic notions and myths that seem to thrive in American schools. I think its true that Americans tend to create mythical heroes out of many of your historical figures. In Canada we know and are taught our first PM was a drunken Scotsman who was a racist. Still, he was integral in establishing Confederation and in the expansion west.
And there are a lot of ugly facts that some moderns want to ignore or re-envision about their fore fathers. Its hard to both worship someone and understand that they are humans who are products of their times, and measured against modern mores don't really measure up.
Lets recognize that the genocide of North American indigenous peoples started in 1500, and probably didn't really end until the 1950s. Washington was part of that.

Thus, according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a"vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7 ... QQs22.dpuf

hacker

I won't ever convince you of that, no matter how obvious it may seem to me that you're trying to judge Washington by two different standards simultaneously

I would hope it was obvious. That's what I've been saying repeatedly.

hacker

I'm not mocking you, but it was quite hilarious when you said he did nothing for women's suffrage (or rights).

Its a fact though, right?

hacker

I think by getting bogged down in Washington we're ignoring the big picture here

Whats the big picture then? Are you content to measure "good" versus "bad" only through the lens of the contributions of a leader to his narrow tribe and times? Or are you willing to also acknowledge that those contributions often mean little when measured against Nussbaums metrics?
If you want to argue that historically incremental progress paved the way, and made easier the major progress made by subsequent leaders, then you have solid ground. Without a solid federal constitution, the US probably would have devolved into several states... and Washington was a large part of the successful execution of Federal government that set the stage.
However the government and constitution he set in motion was hugely flawed, and contained a great evil . Failure to confront it in 1780, only delayed the inevitable and sustained an ongoing genocide.

SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE: WHAT TO REMEMBER?
http://www.discoversociety.org/2014/03/ ... -remember/

Ricky, did you go to school in the United States? I did. And I remember, with at least some detail, hammered into us since middle school, the trail of tears, the removal and genocide of the American Indians (especially the plains Indians vis-a-vis the railroads' and settlers' "need" for land); and of course slavery, including lots of nice pictures of it. And I don't mean one or two pages, either. And P.S., this was in Carroll County Public Schools--a red county. And I remember the facts being taught quite frankly. They might not have gone "Howard Zinn" on us, but they laid out the facts of what was done.

And they didn't canonize the founding fathers. They kind of put a shroud of mysticism around things like the Great Compromise, the Philadelphia Convention, etc...but no myths. I was never taught that Washington chopped down one of his father's cherry trees and then owned up to it.

You don't think that if canonizing Washington is ridiculous, going to the other extreme is not equally so? Washington wasn't alive in 1500, so I do not see what you're saying that's relevant to our discussion of good and bad leaders. Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was the Spanish who handed out the germ-warfare blankets to the natives?

In Canada we know and are taught our first PM was a drunken Scotsman who was a racist. Still, he was integral in establishing Confederation and in the expansion west.

Well hopefully Sir John kept it indoors, else Queen Victoria might have given him a pass on the knighthood. Public drunkenness is a crime in the U.S., and I'm assuming the police in Canada have an equal disdain for it? John Adams started each day with a tankard of hard cider, according to the Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition.

Oh, and:

Whats the big picture then? Are you content to measure "good" versus "bad" only through the lens of the contributions of a leader to his narrow tribe and times?

You're the one who said they needed to be judged with those particular caveats in mind. How do I mean the big picture? The big picture, as in, how do we judge a ruler as good or bad, without throwing out innumerable links, to a bazillion college professors' papers, instead of coming up with a unique answer of your own. I was hoping we could think for ourselves for once in this thread. Not let someone else think for us. Because so far it's gone in circles about George Bloody Washington and little else. Hopefully, we can still come up with standards of leadership on our own and not just rehash secondary sources, whether Machiavelli or Nussbaum.

I hope Sassench and Danivon haven't totally disappeared on this because I value their opinions as well. But if they've given this one a pass who can blame them?

hacker

Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was the Spanish who handed out the germ-warfare blankets to the natives?

British.

The Siege of Fort Pitt took place in 1763 in what is now the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. The siege was a part of Pontiac's Rebellion, an effort by American Indians to drive the British out of the Ohio Country and back across the Appalachian Mountains. The Indian effort to capture Fort Pitt ultimately failed. This event is best known for the documented use of biological warfare when the British Army at Fort Pitt fooled and passively attacked the Native Americans with smallpox using blankets that had been exposed to the virus. The attack contributed to the widespread smallpox epidemics that killed much of their population during and after the war

Hacker

The big picture, as in, how do we judge a ruler as good or bad, without throwing out innumerable links, to a bazillion college professors' papers, instead of coming up with a unique answer of your own.

Well, if your just making shit up without evidence... thats not much of a debate.
We could debate who would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse just as effectively.

hacker

They kind of put a shroud of mysticism around things like the Great Compromise, the Philadelphia Convention, etc...but no myths.

You should look the definition of mysticism up. If you accept the application of this term, I can't understand why you have a problem with the term myth.

Ricky, the article you linked to disputes that what happened to Indians in America should be described as genocide and gave convincing reasons why that term is inaccurate.

Well, if your just making shit up without evidence... thats not much of a debate.
We could debate who would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse just as effectively.

OK Ricky, if you're going to pull off the gloves by accusing me of making shit up then I am afraid I must no longer restrain myself from saying something I think you seriously need to consider. To wit:

Now, I have done what you have as well: brought up sources or evidence, even hard data at times (primary sources). The problem is that the sources I bring up, or to which I provide links in the same manner as you typically do, usually meet with ad hominem attacks; with ad naseum ad infinitum frequency.

Have you ever tried deliberately looking for a source that proves you wrong, just to get a "second opinion"? Or do you look for and use only the sources that support what you already assumed before you Googled them? Because I very strongly get the impression that that is what you are doing. I'm not saying you have to quote or use as links sources you disagree with, or do not find convincing, or even that you have to agree with them; just looking for one or more sources to give you another perspective before you post something. Because if one already makes up one's mind, and then looks only for sources that support one's assumption, that's about as bad as "making shit up without evidence"! Don't they teach the scientific method in Canadian public schools? There's a difference between finding out the truth about something, and just finding other people's sources which agree with what you already believed anyway.

Free information can sometimes be worth exactly what it costs (the cost of information is not always a "money" price). And the internet is abound with misinformation. Everybody would like to think he's the only one in the room capable of seeing through the bull**** and everybody else should therefore automatically listen to, and agree with, everything he says. But that's a very dangerous and often costly kind of arrogance.

For example, you once used a book review on Amazon as your "evidence" to support your belief in another thread in which we were arguing. I tried (in vain) to point out that one book description on Amazon does not constitute conclusive "evidence". When I tried to point this out I was, as usual, patronized for not believing you. (How could I possibly have such audacity?!) You've often said things before like "a majority of American political scientists" after reading one academic paper. When you showed me that paper on the Gingrich Senators, and I asked you a question that put a bit of a crack in the professor's arguments (or at least his data) you never answered my question or considered my objection (probably because it put a rather inconvenient hole in your argument). If the name has "Ph.D' after it, and agrees with you, you present it as evidence and anyone who disagrees with it, even if they point out a flaw in its reasoning, is automatically a total clown. I have known a few professors in my lifetime who were totally wrong about something (that I was able to prove by looking elsewhere myself). Especially the ones who, once they've already got tenure, could light the building on fire and not get removed for it. Not making a blanket statement, Ricky, but I am not a fool because I share just a little skepticism to some "research" on the internet. Because there are a lot of morons out there, and somehow, some of them managed to get Ph.D's (and even tenure).

The intent of this thread was to consider carefully what makes a ruler good or bad. Certainly sources of information from others are helpful here, as always. But this sort of philosophical consideration requires a little thinking of one's own....not just rehashing stale academic papers or articles written by someone else that took ten seconds to find. That is why I often prefer raw data to someone else's analysis. I would think someone with a mind as independent and strong-willed as yours would be able to respect that.

You should look the definition of mysticism up.

You know exactly what I meant. Incidentally, I do have the entire Oxford English Dictionary online. Perhaps I didn't 100% properly use the term "mysticism". Hopefully you'll forgive me at some point for being such a moron.

Well, hell, I ought to be grateful. After all, you didn't call me an outright idiot like you did in the Election thread. Perhaps on that occasion, you were unable to find an obscure academic's paper to disprove my idea, so you had to resort to calling people idiots. However, I suppose it's only logical that when you run out of ammunition, you have no choice but to fix bayonets.

I have "made up" nothing in this thread. Not a damn thing. I just had the temerity to disagree with your conclusions, as well as the conclusions of the sources you were kind enough to share with us. I find some of the arguments that you have made in this thread irrelevant. Now, if I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't bother. (Should I have?)

My solution to this would be to agree to disagree on the Washington/genocide thing, and get back to what makes a ruler good or bad. Yes, you've brought up interesting points. Yes, you have pulled out a few sources that agree with your thesis. I am not saying that your sources have been totally devoid of facts. But you often allow yourself to get bogged down with irrelevant minutiae, and it's gotten a little tiring of late. I think we should move on and consider another leader? And if either of us wants to use sources at least use ones that don't go to far off topic.

OK?

freeman3

Ricky, the article you linked to disputes that what happened to Indians in America should be described as genocide and gave convincing reasons why that term is inaccurate

and reasons why the term is accurate.
Most of the reasons that it is not are because the behavior of the invading population towards the indigenous wasn't always intended to eradicate the indigenous.
I concede that if the term can only be used if intentions can be proved in every case that genocide is too broad. Is there another term for the eradication for an indigenous people by an invading peoples through both planned and inadvertent means?
Jared Diamond uses the term in his books by the way. Perhaps just as loosely?
Whatever the intentions of forced resettlement and expulsion. the results were the same.

hacker i didn't accuse you of making shit up.
But you want to ignore the nature of the debate.
Where i and others had agreed upon a metric (Nussbaum), you don't want to accept it.
And instead appealed to create another standard, out of whole cloth without regard to the accepted standard.
And you don't seem to want to acknowledge that i have acknowledge using both context and absolute terms in measuring leaders,
I.'m sorry you got upset

JimHackerMP wrote:I hope Sassench and Danivon haven't totally disappeared on this because I value their opinions as well. But if they've given this one a pass who can blame them?

Frankly both of you are boring the hell out of me.

My preceding post was intended to draw a line on the thread up to that point in terms of my views, and it certainly hasn't moved on constructively since.

The thread lost me a little bit with the attempt to define objective criteria for good and bad rulers, something which I don't think is terribly helpful and probably not even possible. I'll admit I haven't been following closely since.

Well good point. What I personally thought could be an intellectual exercise, and might be interesting, well, nevermind....

I feel a little slighted in not being mentioned with Sass and Danivon... After all, I proposed the Nussbaum capabilities standard that Ricky has been wielding like a club against any ruler who transgresses them!

freeman3

After all, I proposed the Nussbaum capabilities standard that Ricky has been wielding like a club against any ruler who transgresses them!

Well, it fit in my hand so well.
Any comparative evaluation requires an agreed upon set of standards and metrics. Otherwise its just subjective lists. (Like a critics 10 best movies list. )

If Hacker didn't agree with that he could have argued against Nussbaum with another set of criteria..

freeman3 wrote:I feel a little slighted in not being mentioned with Sass and Danivon... After all, I proposed the Nussbaum capabilities standard that Ricky has been wielding like a club against any ruler who transgresses them!

Actually, that was about the peak of the thread, when you mentioned it. So you should feel slighted - about the best contributions to the entire thread in about two posts.

We could, I guess, have discussed Amartya Sen's dissent from Nussbaum, with him arguing that you can't actually objectively measure these things and at any time/place/polity you ought to take in context, ethical and political before you can even try and weight them.

Ach, weel.