Unz评论•另类媒体选择
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 玩笑俄罗斯反应博客
平行思想
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复查看我们的环境与可持续发展以及健康与安全公司政策
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

一位读者向我指出,我的论点 关于动物权利与奴隶制:

这并不意味着我同意这一评估,而是再次重申,在19世纪初期,南部一个州的普通美国公民大概也对奴隶制没有什么疑虑。 意见可能会迅速改变。 在荷兰或SF湾区等少数地方,1999年,一个支持同性恋公民工会但不支持同性恋婚姻的人将被视为顽固的进步主义者。 在2019年,美国大部分地区会认为同一个人会退步,即使这不是道德上的不祥之兆。 另外,考虑一下支持异族通婚的趋势:1959年–仅占4%; 2010年代初期-高达80%。 您的祖父冲进诺曼底的海滩以“拳打纳粹” 他自己是法西斯主义者 (按照现代自由主义话语的标准)。

... 由 Audacious Epigone 于 2012 年提出:

对于那些对历史人物的行为进行道德诽谤的人,我最喜欢使用的修辞手段之一是关于食用肉类的思想实验,或者更准确地说,食用屠宰的动物只是为了成为我们的晚餐。 对我来说,在未来,从事这种行为的想法会被视为道德上的可恶,就像今天对我们来说的奴隶制一样,这对我来说似乎并非不可想象。 如果他们,以及他们认识的几乎所有其他人, 有被注销的风险 被子孙后代作为在他们生活的 21 世纪早期社会中甚至没有争议的事情的肇事者?

当然,对于当代观众来说,这种转变听起来有点牵强和不可思议,这正是重点,就像废除奴隶制听起来一样 2世纪罗马人 和他们同时代的人或大赦第一次十字军东征后抵抗的耶路撒冷居民的想法 成功围城 对十字军和他们同时代的人来说,包括他们把剑放在剑上的撒拉逊人来说,这听起来很重要。

这似乎也是一个非常合理的观点。

 
• 类别: 历史 •标签: 动物权利怪兽 
隐藏19条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
  1. At the risk of sounding too much like Dmity, but why should one care about what posterity 可能 think about our actions?
    Also sounds like an implicit admission that “progress” in the sense of ever-increasing universalism (even including animals like pigs) is inevitable anyway and that right-wingers will be seen as having been “on the wrong side of history”.

    btw, I’m not sure about some of the historical arguments either. iirc views about slavery in the American South actually became 更极端 during the course of the first half of the 19th century (from a regrettable necessity that might eventually be abolished if conditions were right, as many Southerners saw it in the early 19th century, to John C. Calhouns “positive good”). And the crusades were a novel development of the 11th century, certainly at odds with what the early Christians had believed about military violence.

    • 回复: @Carlo
    @German_reader

    "And the crusades were a novel development of the 11th century, certainly at odds with what the early Christians had believed about military violence."
    Christians are not hippies who sing all we need is love. The Cruzades were not at odds with traditional Christian beliefs, they were a late reaction to Muslim expansionism which became possible only after the end of the first millenium when Western Europe had the demographics and economical development to actually start pushing back the Muslims.

    回复:@German_reader

  2. Thanks for really fleshing it out in the sentience post, expanding greatly on the inchoate analogy I use IRL.

  3. @German_reader
    At the risk of sounding too much like Dmity, but why should one care about what posterity 可能 think about our actions?
    Also sounds like an implicit admission that "progress" in the sense of ever-increasing universalism (even including animals like pigs) is inevitable anyway and that right-wingers will be seen as having been "on the wrong side of history".

    btw, I'm not sure about some of the historical arguments either. iirc views about slavery in the American South actually became 更极端 during the course of the first half of the 19th century (from a regrettable necessity that might eventually be abolished if conditions were right, as many Southerners saw it in the early 19th century, to John C. Calhouns "positive good"). And the crusades were a novel development of the 11th century, certainly at odds with what the early Christians had believed about military violence.

    回复:@Carlo

    “And the crusades were a novel development of the 11th century, certainly at odds with what the early Christians had believed about military violence.”
    Christians are not hippies who sing all we need is love. The Cruzades were not at odds with traditional Christian beliefs, they were a late reaction to Muslim expansionism which became possible only after the end of the first millenium when Western Europe had the demographics and economical development to actually start pushing back the Muslims.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @Carlo


    The Cruzades were not at odds with traditional Christian beliefs
     
    Among the early Christians, before Constantine's conversion, it was at least controversial whether Christians could serve as soldiers (one of the arguments of pagan opponents of Christianity was that Christianity endangered the security of the empire because of Christian pacifism). And even later, in the Christian empire, the idea remained influential that shedding blood in war was something a good Christian had to do penance for, even if it was a just war.
    Viewing military violence under specific conditions as meritorious was a new development in Latin Christendom during the 11th century.

    回复:@匿名co夫

  4. @Carlo
    @German_reader

    "And the crusades were a novel development of the 11th century, certainly at odds with what the early Christians had believed about military violence."
    Christians are not hippies who sing all we need is love. The Cruzades were not at odds with traditional Christian beliefs, they were a late reaction to Muslim expansionism which became possible only after the end of the first millenium when Western Europe had the demographics and economical development to actually start pushing back the Muslims.

    回复:@German_reader

    The Cruzades were not at odds with traditional Christian beliefs

    Among the early Christians, before Constantine’s conversion, it was at least controversial whether Christians could serve as soldiers (one of the arguments of pagan opponents of Christianity was that Christianity endangered the security of the empire because of Christian pacifism). And even later, in the Christian empire, the idea remained influential that shedding blood in war was something a good Christian had to do penance for, even if it was a just war.
    Viewing military violence under specific conditions as meritorious was a new development in Latin Christendom during the 11th century.

    • 回复: @anonymous coward
    @German_reader


    Among the early Christians, before Constantine’s conversion, it was at least controversial whether Christians could serve as soldiers
     
    It wasn't because the early Christians were pacifists, it was because serving as soldiers at that time required various official rituals, and these rituals involved worshiping the pagan gods. A huge taboo for early (and modern) Christians.

    And even later, in the Christian empire, the idea remained influential that shedding blood in war was something a good Christian had to do penance for, even if it was a just war.
     
    Yes, of course. It was always like that and is still like that now.

    Viewing military violence under specific conditions as meritorious was a new development in Latin Christendom during the 11th century.
     
    No, it wasn't a new or Western development. You seem to think your two statements contradict, but they don't.

    回复:@German_reader

  5. Yeah, judging historical figures based on the morality of the times that they lived in appears to be more appropriate than judging them by our own, modern standards. Interestingly enough, this is why people such as Hitler are so condemned and hated. Specifically, what they did was extremely vile, repulsive, and reprehensible even by the standards of the times that they lived in–which is why the Nuremberg Trials were held immediately after the end of World War II.

    • 回复: @songbird
    @先生。 XYZ

    I think the reason Hitler is hated so much is that he is a useful moral parable for the Left.

    Imagine if he had been a Communist, who had killed tens of millions of Germans. Or if he had one of those Hawaiian names that was 20 syllables long, and there was some powerful taboo against shortening it, so you couldn't easily say the name, in order to use it as a smear.

    Hitler is hated because he is a boogeyman, not because people read history, or remember it. The idea of a demonology is central to lesson, and this obfuscates the real lessons of the world wars, which is the hubris of the elites. Tojo thought he could take on the US, and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US, and neither was significantly challenged in their views, or had their plans arrested, by their political cohorts. This is really the most shocking aspect of WW2 to me.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.

    回覆:@Anatoly Karlin,@ Matra

  6. What I’d suggest is that the people who think of animals as people (some even use the word) are outliers, not indicators of a trend.

    Meanwhile, everything with this anti-historical moral dimension is purely a function of human group power dynamics. And these are resource gathering strategies with deep evolutionary roots. I mean, who were your most egalitarian groups? Hunter-gatherers, and they ate a lot of animals.

    None of this prevents meat eating from being tied to a human element – global inequity or global warming. But IMO, the moral roots will primarily be a function of people, not animals. Many environmentalists don’t even particularly like animals. They are more about ecosystems – more about Gaia. And for instance, hate the idea of endangered African animals successfully living on a ranch in America, or grey squirrels infesting Britain, or cane toads being in Oz.

    Africa’s projected population explosion might bring these people into conflict with Africans. It will be an interesting test of what instinct is more powerful, egalitarianism or Gaiaism. So, far egalitarianism seems to be winning, as regards immigration. I have previously postulated that growing the group is a more powerful instinct than environmentalism, which is a political successor to human sacrifice, and involves promoting group unity. If your group is much bigger, why care about factionalism? You can squash it with force using your new allies.

  7. Other than love for Mother Russia, Mr Karlin is woke as hell.

    • 回复: @anonymous coward
    @joker2

    Citation needed. He knows very little about Russian history or society and seems to despise actual Russians. What 'love'?

    Maybe you confuse HBD with right-wing nationalism, but that is a big mistake. Leftist globalists in Russia are all HBD, that doesn't stop them from bowing to the Jew and ranting about misogynist oppressionz.

  8. Btw, you can also cite Germany 1946 or China 1950 etc as examples of sudden changes in popular opinions. Given humanities’ complexion, the forms of defeat can be varied like a garden.

    Universalism is basically that the tech of today makes it possible and a reality that we all bow to that one single winner.

    Smart guys can just take their own training in the art of lawyering and invent their versions of twisted clever-speak so they can join the winners’ side and bang the heads of suckers.

  9. “Alternatively, consider the trend in support for interracial marriage: 1959 – only 4%; early 2010s – high 80%’s”

    But only about 10% support it in the bedroom. The overwhelming majority of whites marry other whites. All that poll proves is that people have learned to tell pollsters the answers that won’t get them into trouble. Until cheap lab-grown meat is available, people will keep eating farm-raised meat, even if they tell other people they don’t approve of it.

  10. Re Epigone’s argument. I’d ask why cannot society tolerate mistakes? Why you have to invent arguments to tell everyone and anyone that it is somehow right and not wrong to do this and not do that? Why do you have to be correct? What harm does a statue of Gen Lee do to society of today? Other than those fuckers took insult delibrately unnecessarily?

  11. @Mr. XYZ
    Yeah, judging historical figures based on the morality of the times that they lived in appears to be more appropriate than judging them by our own, modern standards. Interestingly enough, this is why people such as Hitler are so condemned and hated. Specifically, what they did was extremely vile, repulsive, and reprehensible even by the standards of the times that they lived in--which is why the Nuremberg Trials were held immediately after the end of World War II.

    回复:@songbird

    I think the reason Hitler is hated so much is that he is a useful moral parable for the Left.

    Imagine if he had been a Communist, who had killed tens of millions of Germans. Or if he had one of those Hawaiian names that was 20 syllables long, and there was some powerful taboo against shortening it, so you couldn’t easily say the name, in order to use it as a smear.

    Hitler is hated because he is a boogeyman, not because people read history, or remember it. The idea of a demonology is central to lesson, and this obfuscates the real lessons of the world wars, which is the hubris of the elites. Tojo thought he could take on the US, and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US, and neither was significantly challenged in their views, or had their plans arrested, by their political cohorts. This is really the most shocking aspect of WW2 to me.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.

    • 同意: utu
    • 回复: @Anatoly Karlin
    @鸣禽


    ... and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US
     
    He had just taken on France and won. It wasn't that illogical.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.
     
    What, exactly, is failing about any of that? (Good arguments can be made that the bombings were not optimally planned, but they certainly helped wrap up the war quicker).

    回复:@songbird

    , @Matra
    @鸣禽

    One of my favorite rhetorical devices to use on those who cast moral aspersions on the actions of historical figures involves a thought experiment about the consumption of meat, or more precisely, eating animals slaughtered for the sole purpose of becoming our dinner. It doesn’t seem inconceivable to me that in the future, the thought of engaging in such behavior comes to be seen as being as morally abhorrent as slavery seems to us today.

    A professor of mine made this very argument in one of our lectures back in (I think) 1995. It was his way of pre-empting any student squeamishness regarding his matter of fact discussions of slavery and the British Empire. Even then I thought some of the blacks or leftists in class might take offence at it since non-whites were kind of being compared to animals, but none seemed to. One would have to be more careful using such a comparison these days.

    Hitler is hated because he is a boogeyman, not because people read history, or remember it. The idea of a demonology is central

    Hitler's actions had a major impact on every country in Europe, and even the West beyond Europe, so very little demonisation was ever required to maintain his "boogeyman" status. (I don't expect American White Nationalists whose country was never occupied or bombed by Germany to ever acknowledge that regular Europeans, not just Jews and communists, had very good reasons to be hostile to their beloved Germany). The real trick was somehow connecting Hitler's unique worldview and his crimes to all other Europeans, including the countries most devastated by Germany. That has been truly impressive.

  12. I imagine that this is at least partly the point regarding the anti-statue jihad. By modern western standards, almost everyone in America was racist back then, as in any other country. Those who push for this nonsense must be aware of this, meaning that they’re aware that basically any figure in American history is fair game.

    So, they find an important guy from a hundred years ago, call him a racist, and start vandalizing all the statues of him. Then when some unfortunate people protest this by pointing out how ridiculous it is, they get vilified/deplatformed/fired/denied access to financial services, thus weeding out potential dissenters one by one. This way, if they eventually decide to target bigger historical targets, there’s less controversy, as many would-be opponents have already been cowed. Thus, they can remake American history as they please, in wonderful tandem with the Amazon book purge.

    Another added benefit is that not only were famous people racist, but basically everyone was, including 的课 ancestors, and if you don’t express enough contrition for this, you might be a racist too!

    • 回复: @Gummy bear
    @丹尼斯

    Well notice how even the "good" guys like Audacious Epigone have to show we are not Nazis by showing that they are not actually evil WNs, and that they are actually willing to keep their House Negros like Daniel Chieh and Twinkie in their "white" state just to show the liberals how good they are, and that they are not those evil WN David Duke Nazis.

  13. @German_reader
    @Carlo


    The Cruzades were not at odds with traditional Christian beliefs
     
    Among the early Christians, before Constantine's conversion, it was at least controversial whether Christians could serve as soldiers (one of the arguments of pagan opponents of Christianity was that Christianity endangered the security of the empire because of Christian pacifism). And even later, in the Christian empire, the idea remained influential that shedding blood in war was something a good Christian had to do penance for, even if it was a just war.
    Viewing military violence under specific conditions as meritorious was a new development in Latin Christendom during the 11th century.

    回复:@匿名co夫

    Among the early Christians, before Constantine’s conversion, it was at least controversial whether Christians could serve as soldiers

    It wasn’t because the early Christians were pacifists, it was because serving as soldiers at that time required various official rituals, and these rituals involved worshiping the pagan gods. A huge taboo for early (and modern) Christians.

    And even later, in the Christian empire, the idea remained influential that shedding blood in war was something a good Christian had to do penance for, even if it was a just war.

    Yes, of course. It was always like that and is still like that now.

    Viewing military violence under specific conditions as meritorious was a new development in Latin Christendom during the 11th century.

    No, it wasn’t a new or Western development. You seem to think your two statements contradict, but they don’t.

    • 回复: @German_reader
    @匿名co夫


    It wasn’t because the early Christians were pacifists, it was because serving as soldiers at that time required various official rituals, and these rituals involved worshiping the pagan gods.
     
    That was part of the reason, but there were also views that the violence which was part of army service was inherently sinful:

    Melito, bishop of Sardis c. 170, regarded it as a special providence that Augustus had established peace in the empire at the time when Christ's gospel of peace was proclaimed. He accepted a providential role for the empire in the purposes of God. But could an individual Christian fight to maintain this peace? Origen, who echoes Melito's view (c.Cels. ii, 30), explains that Christians may not take up arms to fight, but offer earnest prayers for the just defenders o f the realm (viii, 73). Surviving fragments of early liturgies include prayers for the emperor and for the army, that they 'may subdue all barbarian nations for our perpetual peace'. (See the Solemn
    Prayers for Good Friday in the Roman Missal, which probably g o back to the fourth century.) The pagan Celsus (c. 180) exhorts the Christians to accept public office and serve in the army. The evidence shows that during the third century the Christians followed his advice, and the more they did so the more alarm they caused to the pagans. As soldiers were converted, the question was asked if they could continue in the army after baptism. Tertullian thought not (De Corona 11); Clement of Alexandria thought soldiering no exception to the Pauline rule that Christians should remain in the state in which they were at the time of their being 'called' (Paed. i, 12; Strom, iv, 61—2). T h e impetus for the great persecution of Diocletian in 303 came when Christian army officers of high rank made the sign o f the cross during some sacrifices, and the augurers felt that the lack o f omens and signs was attributable to their presence. The story underlines a point made by Origen, that idolatry is one reason which keeps Christians out of the legions. But Origen also thought bloodshed wrong in principle for a Christian. The council of Arles (314) ruled against Christians in time of peace abandoning military service as a matter o f conscience; in other words, their 'policing' role is acceptable, but not killing. In the 370s Basil of Caesarea similarly allows for the possibility of just war, but even then a soldier who takes life is excommunicate subject to penance (Ep. 188, 13).
     
    (从 The Cambridge history of medieval political thought,p.17,18)。
    The issue was controversial among early Christians, though it's of course true that in the end the view won which considered miltary service as being compatible with Christianity.

    Yes, of course. It was always like that and is still like that now.
     
    Crusaders didn't have to do penance for the violence they committed as crusaders. In fact the entire point of the crusading movement (which was not least a penitential movement for warrior laymen) was that the hardships the crusaders endured in their battles for the faith were already a kind of penance, beneficial for their salvation.
  14. @joker2
    Other than love for Mother Russia, Mr Karlin is woke as hell.

    回复:@匿名co夫

    Citation needed. He knows very little about Russian history or society and seems to despise actual Russians. What ‘love’?

    Maybe you confuse HBD with right-wing nationalism, but that is a big mistake. Leftist globalists in Russia are all HBD, that doesn’t stop them from bowing to the Jew and ranting about misogynist oppressionz.

    • 巨魔: Anatoly Karlin
  15. @anonymous coward
    @German_reader


    Among the early Christians, before Constantine’s conversion, it was at least controversial whether Christians could serve as soldiers
     
    It wasn't because the early Christians were pacifists, it was because serving as soldiers at that time required various official rituals, and these rituals involved worshiping the pagan gods. A huge taboo for early (and modern) Christians.

    And even later, in the Christian empire, the idea remained influential that shedding blood in war was something a good Christian had to do penance for, even if it was a just war.
     
    Yes, of course. It was always like that and is still like that now.

    Viewing military violence under specific conditions as meritorious was a new development in Latin Christendom during the 11th century.
     
    No, it wasn't a new or Western development. You seem to think your two statements contradict, but they don't.

    回复:@German_reader

    It wasn’t because the early Christians were pacifists, it was because serving as soldiers at that time required various official rituals, and these rituals involved worshiping the pagan gods.

    That was part of the reason, but there were also views that the violence which was part of army service was inherently sinful:

    [更多]

    Melito, bishop of Sardis c. 170, regarded it as a special providence that Augustus had established peace in the empire at the time when Christ’s gospel of peace was proclaimed. He accepted a providential role for the empire in the purposes of God. But could an individual Christian fight to maintain this peace? Origen, who echoes Melito’s view (c.Cels. ii, 30), explains that Christians may not take up arms to fight, but offer earnest prayers for the just defenders o f the realm (viii, 73). Surviving fragments of early liturgies include prayers for the emperor and for the army, that they ‘may subdue all barbarian nations for our perpetual peace’. (See the Solemn
    Prayers for Good Friday in the Roman Missal, which probably g o back to the fourth century.) The pagan Celsus (c. 180) exhorts the Christians to accept public office and serve in the army. The evidence shows that during the third century the Christians followed his advice, and the more they did so the more alarm they caused to the pagans. As soldiers were converted, the question was asked if they could continue in the army after baptism. Tertullian thought not (De Corona 11); Clement of Alexandria thought soldiering no exception to the Pauline rule that Christians should remain in the state in which they were at the time of their being ‘called’ (Paed. i, 12; Strom, iv, 61—2). T h e impetus for the great persecution of Diocletian in 303 came when Christian army officers of high rank made the sign o f the cross during some sacrifices, and the augurers felt that the lack o f omens and signs was attributable to their presence. The story underlines a point made by Origen, that idolatry is one reason which keeps Christians out of the legions. But Origen also thought bloodshed wrong in principle for a Christian. The council of Arles (314) ruled against Christians in time of peace abandoning military service as a matter o f conscience; in other words, their ‘policing’ role is acceptable, but not killing. In the 370s Basil of Caesarea similarly allows for the possibility of just war, but even then a soldier who takes life is excommunicate subject to penance (Ep. 188, 13).

    (从 The Cambridge history of medieval political thought,p.17,18)。
    The issue was controversial among early Christians, though it’s of course true that in the end the view won which considered miltary service as being compatible with Christianity.

    Yes, of course. It was always like that and is still like that now.

    Crusaders didn’t have to do penance for the violence they committed as crusaders. In fact the entire point of the crusading movement (which was not least a penitential movement for warrior laymen) was that the hardships the crusaders endured in their battles for the faith were already a kind of penance, beneficial for their salvation.

  16. @songbird
    @先生。 XYZ

    I think the reason Hitler is hated so much is that he is a useful moral parable for the Left.

    Imagine if he had been a Communist, who had killed tens of millions of Germans. Or if he had one of those Hawaiian names that was 20 syllables long, and there was some powerful taboo against shortening it, so you couldn't easily say the name, in order to use it as a smear.

    Hitler is hated because he is a boogeyman, not because people read history, or remember it. The idea of a demonology is central to lesson, and this obfuscates the real lessons of the world wars, which is the hubris of the elites. Tojo thought he could take on the US, and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US, and neither was significantly challenged in their views, or had their plans arrested, by their political cohorts. This is really the most shocking aspect of WW2 to me.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.

    回覆:@Anatoly Karlin,@ Matra

    … and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US

    He had just taken on France and won. It wasn’t that illogical.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.

    What, exactly, is failing about any of that? (Good arguments can be made that the bombings were not optimally planned, but they certainly helped wrap up the war quicker).

    • 回复: @songbird
    @Anatoly卡琳

    Germany may have been able to handle the USSR alone - though I understand many German generals thought it was a bad idea to invade it, but taking on both the USSR and the US at the same time was batshit insane. The Germans were using horses to transport Polish artillery to France. Meanwhile, America made the vast majority of cars in the world before the start of the war. Hitler should have taken the unconventional step of declaring war on Japan, making it near impossible to have a shooting war with the US.

    The end of the war was very suboptimal. Having paid so much to develop and build the bombers, under the myth of precision bombing, they were forced to justify them by bombing cities. IMO, this contributed to the mantra of unconditional surrender. Besides which, in the case of Europe, I'm not convinced the money wouldn't have been better spent on superior tanks and supply lines for those tanks.

    Unconditional surrender led to over 100 million in Eastern Europe being forcefully brought under communism, and a great destabilization in East Asia. Perhaps, though, looking at the US, Western Europe and even SK today, it was really for the best to have a freezer effect.

  17. @songbird
    @先生。 XYZ

    I think the reason Hitler is hated so much is that he is a useful moral parable for the Left.

    Imagine if he had been a Communist, who had killed tens of millions of Germans. Or if he had one of those Hawaiian names that was 20 syllables long, and there was some powerful taboo against shortening it, so you couldn't easily say the name, in order to use it as a smear.

    Hitler is hated because he is a boogeyman, not because people read history, or remember it. The idea of a demonology is central to lesson, and this obfuscates the real lessons of the world wars, which is the hubris of the elites. Tojo thought he could take on the US, and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US, and neither was significantly challenged in their views, or had their plans arrested, by their political cohorts. This is really the most shocking aspect of WW2 to me.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.

    回覆:@Anatoly Karlin,@ Matra

    One of my favorite rhetorical devices to use on those who cast moral aspersions on the actions of historical figures involves a thought experiment about the consumption of meat, or more precisely, eating animals slaughtered for the sole purpose of becoming our dinner. It doesn’t seem inconceivable to me that in the future, the thought of engaging in such behavior comes to be seen as being as morally abhorrent as slavery seems to us today.

    A professor of mine made this very argument in one of our lectures back in (I think) 1995. It was his way of pre-empting any student squeamishness regarding his matter of fact discussions of slavery and the British Empire. Even then I thought some of the blacks or leftists in class might take offence at it since non-whites were kind of being compared to animals, but none seemed to. One would have to be more careful using such a comparison these days.

    Hitler is hated because he is a boogeyman, not because people read history, or remember it. The idea of a demonology is central

    Hitler’s actions had a major impact on every country in Europe, and even the West beyond Europe, so very little demonisation was ever required to maintain his “boogeyman” status. (I don’t expect American White Nationalists whose country was never occupied or bombed by Germany to ever acknowledge that regular Europeans, not just Jews and communists, had very good reasons to be hostile to their beloved Germany). The real trick was somehow connecting Hitler’s unique worldview and his crimes to all other Europeans, including the countries most devastated by Germany. That has been truly impressive.

    • 同意: Anatoly Karlin
  18. @Denis
    I imagine that this is at least partly the point regarding the anti-statue jihad. By modern western standards, almost everyone in America was racist back then, as in any other country. Those who push for this nonsense must be aware of this, meaning that they're aware that basically any figure in American history is fair game.

    So, they find an important guy from a hundred years ago, call him a racist, and start vandalizing all the statues of him. Then when some unfortunate people protest this by pointing out how ridiculous it is, they get vilified/deplatformed/fired/denied access to financial services, thus weeding out potential dissenters one by one. This way, if they eventually decide to target bigger historical targets, there's less controversy, as many would-be opponents have already been cowed. Thus, they can remake American history as they please, in wonderful tandem with the Amazon book purge.

    Another added benefit is that not only were famous people racist, but basically everyone was, including 的课 ancestors, and if you don't express enough contrition for this, you might be a racist too!

    回复:@小熊

    Well notice how even the “good” guys like Audacious Epigone have to show we are not Nazis by showing that they are not actually evil WNs, and that they are actually willing to keep their House Negros like Daniel Chieh and Twinkie in their “white” state just to show the liberals how good they are, and that they are not those evil WN David Duke Nazis.

  19. @Anatoly Karlin
    @鸣禽


    ... and Hitler thought he could take on the Soviet Union and the US
     
    He had just taken on France and won. It wasn't that illogical.

    Of course, the allies had their own similar failings, seeking unconditional surrender and bombing cities, etc.
     
    What, exactly, is failing about any of that? (Good arguments can be made that the bombings were not optimally planned, but they certainly helped wrap up the war quicker).

    回复:@songbird

    Germany may have been able to handle the USSR alone – though I understand many German generals thought it was a bad idea to invade it, but taking on both the USSR and the US at the same time was batshit insane. The Germans were using horses to transport Polish artillery to France. Meanwhile, America made the vast majority of cars in the world before the start of the war. Hitler should have taken the unconventional step of declaring war on Japan, making it near impossible to have a shooting war with the US.

    The end of the war was very suboptimal. Having paid so much to develop and build the bombers, under the myth of precision bombing, they were forced to justify them by bombing cities. IMO, this contributed to the mantra of unconditional surrender. Besides which, in the case of Europe, I’m not convinced the money wouldn’t have been better spent on superior tanks and supply lines for those tanks.

    Unconditional surrender led to over 100 million in Eastern Europe being forcefully brought under communism, and a great destabilization in East Asia. Perhaps, though, looking at the US, Western Europe and even SK today, it was really for the best to have a freezer effect.

评论被关闭。

通过RSS订阅所有Anatoly Karlin评论