The key to really discrediting some despised figure is to present them HONESTLY! Not some mustache twirling cartoon caricature, but how they really are, personal worldview and all, and present your rebuttal appropriately.
TrekLit politics
- Thread starter WorseThanHitler
- Start date
I'd love to see that monster taken off the money and replaced with someone decent. Say, FDR or JFK.
JFK, maybe. But surely, if you'd condemn Jackson as a "monster" for what he did to the Cherokees, etc. (and as someone with Cherokee blood in my veins, I understand completely)--surely you wouldn't let FDR off the hook for what he did to the Japanese, and call him "decent"?
Pesonally...I'd go for Coolidge, or Reagan.
I agree somewhat about Adams (I know--rare). But something should be said about the Alien and Sedition acts which he signed....
I really hate this line of thought. No human being is perfect and if we hold everyone accountable... there'd be no one left to name ships after.
I'd love to see that monster taken off the money and replaced with someone decent. Say, FDR or JFK.
JFK, maybe. But surely, if you'd condemn Jackson as a "monster" for what he did to the Cherokees, etc. (and as someone with Cherokee blood in my veins, I understand completely)--surely you wouldn't let FDR off the hook for what he did to the Japanese, and call him "decent"?
I wouldn't let FDR off the hook per se, but a hell of a lot more people died as a result of Indian Removal than as a result of Japanese-American Internment. And that's to say nothing of the fact that Indian Removal involved invading a foreign nation's land and stealing it for U.S. citizens, rather than either treating them as a sovereign nation like we do with France or Britain or adding them as a state in the Union like we did with Texas or Vermont.
The guy who gave arms to the Iranians? The same Iranians you're convinced are an existential threat to Israel?
Sure. But he's also the guy who was one of the prime movers behind getting the Thirteen Colonies to declare independence, and he got the Dutch to send the Continental Congress a loan that saved the Revolution. His virtues outweigh his sins. I'm not so sure I think the same of Jefferson.
I'd love to see that monster taken off the money and replaced with someone decent. Say, FDR or JFK.
JFK, maybe. But surely, if you'd condemn Jackson as a "monster" for what he did to the Cherokees, etc. (and as someone with Cherokee blood in my veins, I understand completely)--surely you wouldn't let FDR off the hook for what he did to the Japanese, and call him "decent"?
I wouldn't let FDR off the hook per se, but a hell of a lot more people died as a result of Indian Removal than as a result of Japanese-American Internment. And that's to say nothing of the fact that Indian Removal involved invading a foreign nation's land and stealing it for U.S. citizens, rather than either treating them as a sovereign nation like we do with France or Britain or adding them as a state in the Union like we did with Texas or Vermont.
Regardless, the Japanese interment hardly allows one to call FDR "decent".
Ahmadinejad was not president, then. Iran was not as much a threat to Israel then as it is now.
Furthermore, assuming Reagan was in on the deal--I'd call that the lesser of two evils, to save the lives of the hostages in question.
Oh, I agree about Adams. But Jefferson was also one of the prime movers behind getting the Thirteen Colonies to declare independence. He wrote the darned Declaration!
He also called Adams out on the Alien-Sedition Acts (which was such an infringement on individual and civil rights that it CAN'T be shrugged off)--and sent the Marines over to Tripoli to deal with the origial Anti-American Islamic Terrorists.
He also established West Point.
BTW, the Sally Hennings thing was probably a myth. A growing consensus is that the father of her child was a certain relative, who was notorious for going over to the slave quarters at night.
BTW...in Before Dishonor, I believe Spock referred to Jefferson admiringly.
I really hate this line of thought. No human being is perfect and if we hold everyone accountable... there'd be no one left to name ships after.
I feel the same, actually. People and their actions need to be viewed through the lens of history. They may have done things that were unconscionable from our perspective, like owning slaves, but were simply how things were done at that time period.
I mean, let's say that by the 24th century, everyone is a vegetarian, and the 21st century's treatment of animals is considered horrendous. Does that mean everyone who isn't a vegetarian now is tarred with the 'evil' brush that overrides all of their other achievements? Can you be noted for your one good achievement, or does it need to be balanced with your entire life history, and you're only considered as a net positive on the course of human history if your judged achievements 'stack up' against your perceived faults?
I'm not saying I want there to be ships call the USS Hitler or anything, but Obama (and Reagan, and Kennedy), whether history judges him to be a success or a failure, made history, just by being voted in. I have no problem with the idea that someone might name a ship or an airport after him.
Ahmadinejad is not the ruler of Iran; their presidents really ought to be called "chief advisers" or "cabinet chairmen" in English, because that's what they really are. The real ruler of Iran is the Supreme Leader -- currently, Ali Khamenei, who was one of Ruhollah Khomeini's right-hand men during the Iranian Revolution.
So, no, Iran's fundamental nature has a threat or non-threat hasn't changed. Its real leaders are the same cadre who've been in charge since the Carter administration.
The Iran-Contra Affair happened years after the last hostages went home, Rush.
He wrote the Declaration because John Adams asked him to.
And he was not one of the prime movers behind Independence -- really that was Adams more than Jefferson. Adams wanted to make Jefferson the "face" of Independence because, to secure Virginia's support, he wanted a Virginian to be the author of the Declaration. But really it was Adams behind things more than Jefferson. (For more info, read David McCullaugh's wonderful John Adams.)Fair enough, though I don't know if that outweighs the fact that he was a man who lived his opulent life on a mountain on the backs of 300 men and women while proclaiming that all men are created equal.
(I'm a bit more lenient towards Washington, who at least had the excuse of supposedly not being able to free his slaves because they weren't really his to free, and because he at least had them freed in his will.)
DNA evidence would seem to disagree with you.
But, as John Adams said when asked to comment on the matter back in the day:
It does not matter if the story of Jefferson fathering children by Sally Hemmings is true or not, because the fact of the matter is that stories like this will always be told so long as human beings are held in bondage.
It was true in Revolutionary America, and it's true today in countries where slavery still exists.
Are we really discussing Sally Hemmings?
And their "puppet" for our times is a vehement, vitriolic anti-Semite who has repeatedly expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Did the Supreme Ruler have such a fall-guy back then?
BTW...it's worth noting that Khomeni, when he was alive, flat-out forbid "12-ers", those radicals who advocate "hastening the return of the 12th Imam". He was fearful of them, correctly noting that they were unstable, and would cause a lot of trouble--for him, and world affairs.
Ahmadinejad has long established himself as a "12-er"--and the current Supreme Ruler, Khamenei, has just recently came out of the closet as one, publically proclaiming that the Imam has spoken to him, etc.
If only Khomeni knew then what we know now.
Furthermore, the fact that Ahmadinejad has been the public face of Iran for some time--and that Khamenei still has yet to tell him to "shut the heck up, you're making us look like crazy threats to the peace"--kind of implies that Khamenei stands by what this "advisor" has been saying.
Ah...no.
They weren't the hostages freed when Reagan took office, obviously. They were a completely different group. (Read the second paragraph, here.)
He wrote the Declaration because John Adams asked him to.
Didn't the committee also want Jefferson because they knew Adams wasn't popular in the Continental Congress?
Well, as Adams noted in the miniseries based on McCullaugh's book, Jefferson was a "walking contradiction". And as Franklun countered, "We're all contradictions, Mr. Adams."
Looking at Jefferson's writings, he was against slavery--in theory, as it contradicted all men being created equal. For whatever reason (and we may never know his reasons--we can only speculate), he just didn't actively abolish it in his own household.
My personal theory is that he preferred to have the US abolish slavery on a step-by-step process (see the clause in the Constitution allowing the importing of slaves to be outlawed by 1808). Probably, he was of the assumption that African-Americans would need to "adjust" to freedom, bit-by-bit--and that a sudden emancipation would result in tragic chaos for the newly freed slaves who knew no other life.
But that's just my theory. Again, we may never know his reasons with 100% certainty.
But look--John Locke himself profited from the slave trade. Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Martin Luther came to cross the line into anti-Semitism.
Even the best of men...are men, at best.
The jury's still out on it. The growing consensus contends that it was Thomas's younger brother, Randolph--who, again, was notorious for going over to the slave quarters.
It being Tom's brother--his blood relation--allows for the DNA "evidence". (BTW, Wikipedia isn't exaclty the best source to cite from in such matters...as anyone who's written a college paper with a bibliography knows well.)
So it doesn't matter whether it was true or not, because the "idea" behind it is sound?
The evidence isn't what's important, it's the seriousness of the charge, remember?
Exactly. Jefferson was more than a little conflicted on that whole business.
Folks who don't want to find politics in fiction should probably read only fairy tales...although actually, a lot of political stuff figures in European folk tales too, it's just not as current. So it looks like a tough row to hoe for reality-free storytelling in general.
Hmm. So even if the person is totally innocent--if the charge is serious enough, THAT is what will be remembered. *sigh*
Wasn't this a plot point in the first two A Time To... books?