Should all historical figures be investigated for potential issues from their past?

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Should all historical figures be investigated for potential issues from their past? Or should their significant moments in history be recorded without considering their flaws at other times of their lives?

If you vote for investigations, should a serious incident be grounds for cancelling them from history?
 
 
I agree with Zunardo "Yes. No. Yes." Should they be investigated? Yes. That is what historians do. Anything that can be known about historically significant individuals should be known and the facts should be part of the written history, but, under no circumstances should we fail to record their "significant moments in history", nor should we "cancel(ling) them from history". History should be as complete a record as possible and should accurately place a historic figure in their place and time and accurately describe them by their actions, warts and all.
 
More bad gets done trying to hide "wrongs" than in the actual doing. Everything gets judged and evaluated differently by each generation. It's part of the process. We'll survive this.

Said it always, will always say it. History is revisionist. As new "facts" are discovered or exposed, they are viewed in present light and any good historian will also view them in context. We got here, from there and to the next thing by evaluating those facts honestly within the context of when they happened from ALL viewpoints as well as their present interpretation.

Those whining are only pizzed because the antiquated views held by their small circle are not as widely accepted as they thought, now or then. They're hearing that other people actually existed back in the good ol days and now the descendents of those others are bringing to light, there were other viewpoints.

We're all on the losing side of this at some point unless we prefer our head in the sand. Nothing is being "canceled." Everyone still gets their opinion.
 
Should all historical figures be investigated for potential issues from their past? Or should their significant moments in history be recorded without considering their flaws at other times of their lives?

If you vote for investigations, should a serious incident be grounds for cancelling them from history?

I agree with Zunardo that we should look at ALL the issues surrounding ALL of our historical figures.

At the same time we should NEVER cancel one from history no matter how egregious the wrong. Standards change over time as to what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior. Leave it up to each generation to decide. But if you cancel (erase) them from history then you rob future generations of the chance to make up their own minds, using their own standards, of these historical figures.
 
A great example of this would be Benedict Arnold. Most people know him as America's greatest traitor. Yet he was also a courageous warrior who may have done more to win the Revolutionary War then every other military commander not named George Washington.
 
I agree with Zunardo "Yes. No. Yes." Should they be investigated? Yes. That is what historians do. Anything that can be known about historically significant individuals should be known and the facts should be part of the written history, but, under no circumstances should we fail to record their "significant moments in history", nor should we "cancel(ling) them from history". History should be as complete a record as possible and should accurately place a historic figure in their place and time and accurately describe them by their actions, warts and all.
Thanks, but you and lotr10 give me too much credit, or maybe I was too subtle.

I think we should cancel them. Cancel all of them. But let's be sure we start with ourselves.
 
How should the “Me Too” movement treat serial philanderers like JFK, LBJ, MLK, RFK? Shouldn’t we remove their names from all schools, buildings, parks, streets, monuments, etc?
 
Removing them from history is the same as McCarthyism in the 1950s and the Cancel Culture of today. Whether someone had other issues in their life or not the fact is they still had a distinct impact on history for whatever event they are recognized for accomplishing. We are all humans and none of us is perfect. Add to it social norms evolve and change and what may be viewed as bad by today’s standards may have been quite acceptable in a different time. Not saying it’s right or wrong but I do think it’s wrong to judge an event based on another times standards and then try to cancel it by erasing history.
 
As far as investigating historical figures to see if they have flaws, for what purpose? What is really gained? Like I said we're all human. Now if there was a murder or some other egregious crime committed then that may warrant investigation., but most of what I think people are going after are potential character flaws. If it's character flaws being investigated again I ask what purpose does it really serve?

I really think there is a contingent of anti-Americans that is going after the fabric of America by some of this type of historical investigation. Anyone with common sense knows the USA is not perfect. We committed genocide against Native American, we used indentured servitude with Chinese to build the railroad west, and with the Irish to dig the Canals in the midwest. And the biggest black eye is the slavery issue. But we evolve and try to get better. Condemning the past based on principles of today is absurdity.

In order to develop as a society one must study and understand the past and learn from it but to condemn and/or erase it is the same as ignoring it and eventually repeating it in some norm or fashion. In the end you could even look at it in biblical terms and say, ye who has no sin cast the first stone. Or if you're not into religion then ye who lives in a glass house should be very careful with throwing that stone.

I will also add that not everything is absolute because we are human.
 
Last edited:
Nah, we don't want to have to rename the thousands of streets, buildings, etc named after MLK.
Kinda crazy but he is being caceld by the left for his racist beliefs...things like all men are created equal, judging a person by content of character and not skin color, a color blind society... all racist now, because he wanted equal Opertunies for all, and didn't preach about the white privilege and being born racist little white devils.
 
More bad gets done trying to hide "wrongs" than in the actual doing. Everything gets judged and evaluated differently by each generation. It's part of the process. We'll survive this.

Said it always, will always say it. History is revisionist. As new "facts" are discovered or exposed, they are viewed in present light and any good historian will also view them in context. We got here, from there and to the next thing by evaluating those facts honestly within the context of when they happened from ALL viewpoints as well as their present interpretation.

Those whining are only pizzed because the antiquated views held by their small circle are not as widely accepted as they thought, now or then. They're hearing that other people actually existed back in the good ol days and now the descendents of those others are bringing to light, there were other viewpoints.

We're all on the losing side of this at some point unless we prefer our head in the sand. Nothing is being "canceled." Everyone still gets their opinion.
History isnt revisionist. What happened, happened. The context is of the contemporary time, not viewpoints long after their time.

Judging people and events with the lens of today is revisionist.
 
History is history. It should all be disclosed. As MoeDude pointed out, virtually all historical figures are humans and will have human faults - some of which may not have even been considered faults at the time. That shouldn't take away from whatever achievements they had that they are noted for.

Pythagoras had slaves, but that doesn't mean that his theorum is wrong.
 
The Washington Times:


Woke Democrats want her to denounce her father who was mayor of Baltimore, a deeply racist city in the 1940s and ’50s


ANALYSIS/OPINION:



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s place at the head of the mob intent on correcting the wrongs of past generations has been endangered. She has been waving the bloody shirt about past generations’ complicity in racism, and now her role at the head of the mob is in question.


It has been discovered that her father was mayor of Baltimore in the 1940s and 1950s, and now the woke brethren want her to denounce him.


Baltimore in the 1940s and 1950s was deeply racist, Maryland being a border state during the Civil War. In fact, the train bearing President Abraham Lincoln to Washington was in danger of being attacked by southern sympathizers as it passed through Baltimore.


So what will Nancy do? Nancy wants to change the subject. She is reluctant to throw her father, Thomas D’Alesandro under the bus, but who can say? Many of us have marveled at how she has wiggled out of similar problems. We are eager to see how she handles the woke brethren.


Is it possible that she can get away with saying the Thomas D’Alesandro that was mayor of Baltimore from 1947 to 1959 and oversaw racially segregated housing and schooling was not her father? Her father was a different Thomas D’Alesandro. There were a lot of D’Alesandros in Baltimore at the time. Now let us get on with talking about infrastructure and extending that $300 weekly bonus unto eternity.


Actually, I have sent my vast research staff out and they have discovered Thomas D’Alesandro was indeed Nancy’s father, and he did preside over segregated housing and schooling in Baltimore. He even dedicated statues to civil war heroes — Southern civil war heroes. And he did this well after the 1870s and 1880s when you would have thought Southerners were cooling off.


Old Tom dedicated a monument to Robert E. Lee and to Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson in 1948 long after the war, and he spoke warmly of the Southern generals. Presumably in an open-air setting he said: “Today, with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions.”


Yes, he recommended two Southern generals who devoted the high point in their lives to destroying the Union and casting asunder the Founding Fathers’ one great gift to the heritage of freedom-loving people around the world, the Constitution of the United States.


Politicians have a way of twisting things for their own ends. Thomas D’Alesandro had it and his daughter has it still. Take two generals who were our sworn enemies in centuries past and transform them into American exemplars in 1948.


But did you notice how quick the mayor was to express his alarm over “subversive groups” back in 1948? Then he went on to declaim against “propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity.” Then he exhorted us to “look for inspiration” from Gen. Lee and Gen. Jackson. Well, I would find them as inspirational in waging war, Mr. Mayor, and in terms of high personal character, but that is about as far as I will go. The Tyrrells were defenders of the Union.


Obviously the concerns of the woke brethren were not very much on Mayor D’Alesandro’s mind. If I follow his references to “subversive groups” and “propaganda” he was as were many Americans in 1948 alarmed by communism, Soviet communism and domestic communism. That was the burning issue of the day and there would be no civil rights movement — or at least not much of one — if we did not get Soviet communism right.
 
Should all historical figures be investigated for potential issues from their past? Or should their significant moments in history be recorded without considering their flaws at other times of their lives?

If you vote for investigations, should a serious incident be grounds for cancelling them from history?

As a high school history teacher I'll bite.

Part of the fun in history is finding out that these people were just as human as the rest of us. When I teach about our founding fathers it is not to disrespect them instead to have my students understand that these men were not super human, but instead just as flawed as you or I.

Should a disgusting figure in history be cancelled? Absolutely not. Should they be honored? No. People can't tell the difference unfortunately.
 
History isnt revisionist. What happened, happened. The context is of the contemporary time, not viewpoints long after their time.

Judging people and events with the lens of today is revisionist.

Richard B Russel was famous once. Where were you when he was "canceled" by the Republicans? Do you object to this segregationist being "canceled?"

We don't know what all happened at any given time, even the most famous of times. Reading something contemporary to WWII or even more obvious, Vietnam is an apples to oranges experience. All taught history is revisited in light of new facts and new cultural leanings.

Of COURSE History is revisionist. The history you learned in high school was revised many times before it hit that book. Even on a given topic, the same spins weren't taught in 198- as were in 1960 or 50 or the time of occurence.

"canceling" is running from new knowledge as much as it is running from old knowledge. Why do you see it as ok in one situation and not the other?
 
Last edited:
Richard B Russel was famous once. Where were you when he was "canceled" by the Republicans? Do you object to this segregationist being "canceled?"

We don't know what all happened at any given time, even the most famous of times. Reading something contemporary to WWII or even more obvious, Vietnam is an apples to oranges experience. All taught history is revisited in light of new facts and new cultural leanings.

Of COURSE History is revisionist. The history you learned in high school was revised many times before it hit that book. Even on a given topic, the same spins weren't taught in 198- as were in 1960 or 50 or the time of occurence.

"canceling" is running from new knowledge as much as it is running from old knowledge. Why do you see it as ok in one situation and not the other?
Cultural leanings ?

Judge people by their times not our times.
 
Top