What's even the point of being interested in history, if you logically have to condemn and hate every single person in history you read about, because they have bigoted, non-liberal views?Like the solution to every religious question is always "priests should have no state authority, everyone should be free to choose their own religion".The solution to every Civil War is "people should be free to choose the leader they prefer and also campaign themselves to become Roman Emperors, if they want to". The solution to every single war is "war is mean, everyone should dismantle their military, melt their swords into farming equipment and be peaceful". Like what the actual fuck? How can this be your opinion? You not only should know better, YOU DO KNOW BETTER, if you are interesting in history. You know how this works out. I genuinely don't understand people, who are obsessed with history, but are left-wing or liberal. You have to have an insane double-think going on to make that work. I for that matter am not interested in learning about the entire history of drag queens, transsexual brothels and secret homosexual sign language just to hate on them.
>>18523853What do you mean by "knowing better," given that you seem to be applying your own present-day values to judge what the correct lessons of history should be?
>>18523855>What do you mean by "knowing better," I literally speak of this in the OP.Like imagine reading about a Roman Civil War and your only opinion on this is:>they are all evil, bigoted slave owners and should have decided who should rule by fair elections of all men and women in the Empire and not warOr this:>you should only ever fight a defensive war>taken too long, because of a Civil War and the Turks settled in Anatolia with their families?>Well, now it's their territory and it would be evil to conquer them, so you should just make peace with them and engage in mutually beneficial tradeLike this completely naive thinking that ANY authority illegitimate, that wars of aggression are always wrong (except against Germany in WW2) and so on. These modern Liberal values, which make all historical person from even just a few decades ago into bigoted monsters (if they take them seriously)
>>18523937But if you're arguing that judging historical figures by modern values is naive, aren't you also judging those modern liberals by your values which, by your own logic, a historian from the future would find equally parochial and limited?
>>18523953>But if you're arguing that judging historical figures by modern values is naiveNot naive. I actually can't comprehend their position. I can't put myself in their shoes. There is something fundamentally missing, which I do not understand about them. Like how do you, as a history professor, create a little roleplay scenario, where students argue on behalf of say the founding fathers, but you completely ignore the history of race, gender, slavery, etc in that exercise, because you are afraid of offending someone or alternatively end the exercise by all reminding them they just roleplayed as literally Hitler and should remember to shun the opinion of the people they just roleplay as.>aren't you also judging those modern liberals by your values which, by your own logic, a historian from the future would find equally parochial and limited?No. If you just applied "my logic" without any further context, then the historians of the future are hypocrites, who have retarded libtard values, but for some reason make an exception for me, despite me having very anti-liberal values and beliefs. Of course I don't actually believe that, because I think they make an exception for people born after 1945, since the second World War is the secular founding myth of modern Liberalism.
