Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right
I think Thomas Jefferson was a great man. President, writer of the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary War leader - who wouldn't agree with me? Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves, and, unlike George Washington, who freed all the slaves he legally could, Jefferson kept his slaves.
I think Winston Churchill was a great man, especially for his heroic leadership in winning World War II. But Churchill's ineptness at naval tactics proved very costly during the First World War. After the war, his colonial decisions, especially the use of poison gas to suppress Iraqi revolts during the 1920s, continue to cause problems for the modern world.
My first point is this - nobody is perfect. We are all human and flawed by definition. Everybody does something wrong or could have done something better.
My second point is that identifying the flaws of historical figures or eras does not mean that we have to throw away that era. Saying, for example, that the British colonization of Kenya wrong doesn't mean that Britain (or America) has no moral standing to criticize evils done by Kenyans or in Kenya, either then or now. Or more simply, two wrongs don't make a right.
Now, understanding the history of say, Kenyan colonization may explain why certain bad things have or are happening. Understanding why is not the same as approving of the action. Poor people are more likely to steal stuff than are rich people. This doesn't make theft right - it explains and predicts the action. Criminal profilers study why criminals commit crime, not to justify it, but to catch the offenders.
Sometimes things are simple. Sometimes the "bad guy" really is just evil. But sometimes things aren't simple. The trick is understanding which is which.
I think Winston Churchill was a great man, especially for his heroic leadership in winning World War II. But Churchill's ineptness at naval tactics proved very costly during the First World War. After the war, his colonial decisions, especially the use of poison gas to suppress Iraqi revolts during the 1920s, continue to cause problems for the modern world.
My first point is this - nobody is perfect. We are all human and flawed by definition. Everybody does something wrong or could have done something better.
My second point is that identifying the flaws of historical figures or eras does not mean that we have to throw away that era. Saying, for example, that the British colonization of Kenya wrong doesn't mean that Britain (or America) has no moral standing to criticize evils done by Kenyans or in Kenya, either then or now. Or more simply, two wrongs don't make a right.
Now, understanding the history of say, Kenyan colonization may explain why certain bad things have or are happening. Understanding why is not the same as approving of the action. Poor people are more likely to steal stuff than are rich people. This doesn't make theft right - it explains and predicts the action. Criminal profilers study why criminals commit crime, not to justify it, but to catch the offenders.
Sometimes things are simple. Sometimes the "bad guy" really is just evil. But sometimes things aren't simple. The trick is understanding which is which.