Going too far?

[Freiwillige]

I agree with Skybird that Roosevelt was itching to provoke something with Japan so that his hand would no longer be tied by the isolationists. I think that he figured the Japanese would eventually attack one of our assets closer to Japan or the Dutch east indies. I doubt he wasn't shocked when Pearl Harbor was attacked, and so effectively at that.

He was already prodding congress to act in speeches given about coming to England's cause. And he admitted in his memoirs to misleading the American people for their own good.

And as far as nuking Japan. It happened for several reasons.

1. As a show piece to make Stalin think twice, Since he was saber rattling already both in the east and the west and pushing for more land grabs.

2. To see the effects of our new super weapon. It was tested on cities that had thus far escaped major damage in the war.

America knew that Japan was about to throw in the towel and had approached Russia about a diplomatic end. The only stipulation was that they kept their emperor. We bombed them and let them keep their emperor anyways.

Politicians are always more devious than the Generals in the field.

Judging a 15th Century person by 21st Centuriy morality is a flawed paradigm, only the arrogance of political correctness allows.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Judging a 15th Century person by 21st Centuriy morality is a flawed paradigm,

My first thought was something like this, too, but I then deleted it because the basic drives of civilisations do not seem to have changed over centuries, if not millenias. Or maybe one should more neutrally say "the ways in which civilisations rise, culminate and fall, often from their own hands". The gaining of new ressources needed at home to support growing populations has been a prime motive from the first tribes to the latest empires.

The problem often becoming obvious here is that additional ressources not often resulted in stockpiling them for times of shortness, to support the population then and enable them to survive despite the failed harvets, for example, but that new ressources always get invested for an ever growing population size. By stockpiling ressources I also mean to maintain agriculture and use of natural ressourceslike wood in way that preserve them not only for the next five years, but for the next dozen of generations, or longer. In other words: no matter how much you win and gain - it simply never will be enough. It necessarily leads to a condition of lethal environmental destruction (disappearing forest, erosion of soil, lacking animals that could be hunted) where the excessively grown population got reduced by hunger, unrest, war, disease. And if the technical status of the civilisation in question already had reached the maximum of it's possible geographical reach and no new areas of potential ressources were accessible, the whole civilisation collapsed and died.

We are too damn many people on earth. That makes any call against birth and population size control a capital crime against humanity, imo.

Originally Posted by Skybird

My first thought was something like this, too, but I then deleted it because the basic drives of civilisations do not seem to have changed over centuries, if not millenias. Or maybe one should more neutrally say "the ways in which civilisations rise, culminate and fall, often from their own hands". The gaining of new ressources needed at home to support growing populations has been a prime motive from the first tribes to the latest empires.

The problem often becoming obvious here is that additional ressources not often resulted in stockpiling them for times of shortness, to support the population then and enable them to survive despite the failed harvets, for example, but that new ressources always get invested for an ever growing population size. By stockpiling ressources I also mean to maintain agriculture and use of natural ressourceslike wood in way that preserve them not only for the next five years, but for the next dozen of generations, or longer. In other words: no matter how much you win and gain - it simply never will be enough. It necessarily leads to a condition of lethal environmental destruction (disappearing forest, erosion of soil, lacking animals that could be hunted) where the excessively grown population got reduced by hunger, unrest, war, disease. And if the technical status of the civilisation in question already had reached the maximum of it's possible geographical reach and no new areas of potential ressources were accessible, the whole civilisation collapsed and died.

We are too damn many people on earth. That makes any call against birth and population size control a capital crime against humanity, imo.

Except we are not talking about a civilization/culture. Christo Columbo was but one man. Can we really blame the faults of an entire civilization on one man? Or visa versa? I think not. He was but the product of that civilization, not its creator. A better lesson would be to focus on the culture of the times, which is what you may be saying but I can't tell, than on one individual and claim he is any better or worse than the rest of the culture of the time.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Except we are not talking about a civilization/culture. Christo Columbo was but one man. Can we really blame the faults of an entire civilization on one man? Or visa versa? I think not. He was but the product of that civilization, not its creator. A better lesson would be to focus on the culture of the times, which is what you may be saying but I can't tell, than on one individual and claim he is any better or worse than the rest of the culture of the time.

I agree with you, but not completely.
When I started studying history here, my first seminar was on early colonialism (for those interested, I have some recommended reading on the topic, though most of it is in German). It was quite interesting, to say the least, and apart from all the atrocities that really did happen, it was a tremendous mental challenge for all involved. We can't, and shouldn't, expect that these people could grasp all of the consequences of their actions, much like it will be only for later generations to assess our current actions. Not that we shouldn't write contemporary history - but some things, and often the most important ones, only become clear in retrospect.
I wouldn't let ole Chris completely off the hook though. One of the reasons is that even to his contemporaries, his behavior seemed extraordinarily harsh and cruel, so we cannot simply blame it on the "spirit of the times", if you will.
He couldn't change that "spirit", but he can be held responsible for how he acted within that framework.

[Skybird]

Columbus was a "kid of his time", but that time, despite differences to our present, nevertheless shared patterns of functioning and drives that compare to those motivations driving the world today. I do not see past and present ike black and white, and thus strictly different, or strictly the same. Some things are different today, and some still are very much the same. What appeared tohave not chnaged that much I tried to line out in the above - and that these variables are amongst those that have not chnaged that much is a reason for concern today, for it puts our global civilisational survival into question.

Possible that I mismatch "civilisational" and "cultural" here, the meaning of both terms are somewhat the other way around in English and German, but I wonder if I correctly understood it. English "civilisation" seems to be what German means by "Kultur" and "German "Zivilisation" seems to mean what English labels as "culture". I try to take this different understanding into account, but maybe I nevertheless use the wrong words at times. Joys of foreign language...

Originally Posted by Shearwater

He couldn't change that "spirit", but he can be held responsible for how he acted within that framework.

Ya mean this framework?

1402: Ottoman and Timurid Empires fight at the Battle of Ankara resulting in Timur's capture of Bayezid I.

1410: The Battle of Grunwald was the decisive battle of the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War leading to the downfall of the Teutonic Knights.

1415: Henry the Navigator leads the conquest of Ceuta from the Moors marking the beginning of the Portuguese Empire.

1415: Battle of Agincourt fought between the Kingdom of England and France

1420–1434: Hussite Wars in Bohemia

1441: Portuguese navigators cruise West Africa and reestablish the European slave trade with a shipment of African slaves sent directly from Africa to Portugal.

1444: Ottoman Empire under Sultan Murad II defeats the Polish and Hungarian armies under Władysław III of Poland and János Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna.

1453: The Fall of Constantinople marks the end of the Byzantine Empire and the beginning of the Growth of the Ottoman Empire.

1453: The Battle of Castillon is the last engagement of the Hundred Years' War and the first battle in European history where cannons were a major factor in deciding the battle.

1454–1466: After defeating the Teutonic Knights in the Thirteen Years' War, Poland annexes Royal Prussia.

1455–1485: Wars of the Roses – English civil war between the House of York and the House of Lancaster.

1456: The Siege of Belgrade halts the Ottoman's advance into Europe.

That's just the first half of the 15th Century. It was a violent time when people died and were subjected to many things which would be considered attrocities today.

Columbo (1451–1506) was also a contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci, (1452–1519), and much of da Vinci's work was warlike and brutal, in its concept. Would you criticize da Vinci? He didn't raise his own sword, that we know of, but he did contribute to the world of the 15th century which we in the 21st century would consider brutal.

[Shearwater]

Could you elucidate why that contradicts what I have said in my previous post, CB?

[KeybdFlyer]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Judging a 15th Century person by 21st Centuriy morality is a flawed paradigm, only the arrogance of political correctness allows.

Some years back I had to take my son's trendy young history teacher to task after I had seen one of the questions she'd set as homework. Basically it was "Describe how Henry VIII's actions were sexist." My son, being only 12 at the time, didn't see the invalidity of the question. By the time I'd concluded my "explanation" of why it was to his teacher, she did!