tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069331194878127.post8237075889538505787..comments2023-09-28T16:46:11.250-05:00Comments on TransylvanianDutch: The Wrong Side of HistoryJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16874952946606709532noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069331194878127.post-32021209527791093562011-01-14T21:15:05.160-06:002011-01-14T21:15:05.160-06:00Well, standing up to what I view as stupidity and ...Well, standing up to what I view as stupidity and immorality today, and arguing with my ancestors, are two different issues.<br /><br />I won't argue with my ancestors, because they have no way to respond. But if a friend says something stupid, I let them know what I think.<br /><br />Coates separation of Society from the Individual is similar to my separation of Government from the Individual. Coates has my difficulty with generalizing individuals as 'evil' or 'morally corrupt.'Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17779409214968505642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069331194878127.post-71201251576030587052011-01-14T04:35:56.222-06:002011-01-14T04:35:56.222-06:00I do believe in moral absolutes, but also that mor...I do believe in moral absolutes, but also that morality has changed over time.<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, though most Americans don't look at him as a morally corrupt individual. I don't think it's being an 'apologist' to view him as a man of his times.<br /><br />There are things today that are debated where I suspect, or at least hope, in 100 years will be decided as a moral absolute.<br /><br />True family historians stick to the facts that they can find, and don't make anything up, good, or bad. If there is nothing written down as to the ancestor's thoughts, assuming anything is being a bad historian.<br /><br />A family historian might present several alternate possibilities for motivations, as long as they emphasize they are only possibilities.<br /><br />I know that there are many reasons today that a man or woman might choose to serve their nation in a war. I don't think it's a far stretch to assume that there might have been multiple reasons during the Civil War and WWII as well.<br /><br />The reasons the governments led their nations into war are rather well documented. The varying reasons the population followed are less so.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17779409214968505642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069331194878127.post-27054700454693395692011-01-13T19:43:07.771-06:002011-01-13T19:43:07.771-06:00I know you're a great guy, but this post and y...I know you're a great guy, but this post and your followup response make you sound like an apologist. I have to agree with Nolichucky Roots that there moral absolutes, and those absolutes were there at the time period. People made choices and some of them were bad choices overtly and some were rather sins of omission rather than commission. People who hide behind the fact they fought for Germany and had nothing to do with the Shoah or fought for Texas and not slavery, were willfully closing their eyes to those evils. <br /><br />True family historians who stress the historian can paint an accurate picture of such ancestors. I think most family historians, especially those online, stress family and tend to whitewash things.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205797878738290997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069331194878127.post-79599430426986982532011-01-13T15:40:40.703-06:002011-01-13T15:40:40.703-06:00I was careful to say "not necessarily wrong,&...I was careful to say "not necessarily wrong," though perhaps I should have gone on to say parenthetically (but sometimes.)<br /><br />That said, what we view as moral absolutes today haven't always been so absolute. I think the time period does matter. <br /><br />The mass genocide of the Third Reich clearly falls on the side of wrong, as while there would have been eras in world history where the morality wouldn't be questioned, the 1940s wasn't such an era in any of the countries involved. <br /><br />The question of slavery wasn't yet a moral absolute in the 19th century as it is today. It was quickly becoming such. And I do feel those today who honor the Confederate flag are either ignorant or morally corrupt. (I tend to be nice and assume the former.) But the Abolitionists of the 19th century were progressive for their time.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17779409214968505642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069331194878127.post-35323789196594364472011-01-13T14:35:50.947-06:002011-01-13T14:35:50.947-06:00Without quibbling about whether "history"...Without quibbling about whether "history" has a right or wrong side I firmly believe there are some conflicts where one side was right and the other wrong. The winners of the Civil War and WWII were more than victorious - they defeated morally corrupt forces. The good guys won.<br /><br />I don't feel the same way about the American Revolution, WWI or most other conflicts. But some issues are not morally neutral. We need to be as accurate as possible in researching our family's involvement in these tragedies. That includes recognizing that whatever their motives may have been, supporting the Confederacy or the Third Reich was supporting an absolute wrong.Susan Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02009218875010743399noreply@blogger.com