Biggest historical misconceptions?

[stevep]

Oh I don't intend to argue that the medieval period was a lost paradise either, a trend which I've seen in some right-wing traditionalist circles. But that is a much less common viewpoint than the opposite which I've discussed in greater detail, it basically isn't talked about at all offline from what I've seen. I think far too many people fall into the trap of basically assuming the people of the past were an entirely different species from us and that we've either evolved or degenerated from their state (depending on whether their bias is progressive or traditionalist), when the reality is they were human just like us, had their ups in addition to their downs, and generally did what they could to live decently with the level of tech and knowledge that they had. (In short, I'm not a primitivist nor do I think the year 1200 was the pinnacle of human civilization.)

This by no means is something limited to the right BTW, you can see it - and a lot more frequently because it's culturally more acceptable these days - in the lionization of the 'noble savage' on the left. I don't know how Britain does it but here in Canada Native Americans, Africans, Aboriginals in Australia, etc. were depicted by virtually all the media & academia while I was growing up as peaceful, blissfully happy hippies who never warred among themselves (or at worst engaged in small-scale skirmishes over food that never escalated to something worse) and were content to live simple lives with simple comforts until the dastardly white man came along with guns, germs and steel and started pitting them against each other.

I think that's more a matter of questioning the prevailing orthodoxy of the day being difficult, which is true for pretty much all of human history - nothing specific to any particular religion or ideology. It's not like the very modern ideologies of Communism or Fascism allow much questioning either, in fact they seem to have come down on it harder than the medieval or Early Modern Catholics ever did. Even our modern liberal democracies have only so much room for dissent before they start coming down on the dissenters like a sack of bricks: just ask the a Mohawk grandmother with a walker trampled by cops during the suppression of a major protest here in Canada earlier this year. And obviously I don't share Kanye West's apparent affection for Hitler and think his recent spiral is either him going nuts (again) or competing for the title of World's Greatest Troll, 2022. But I do consider it ridiculous that he can be financially ruined and deplatformed overnight for spouting crazy statements about, ironically, a conspiracy being out to get him when someone like Tim Wise can demand the destruction of the innocence of certain children because of their skin color among many other, even worse statements that make him sound like a caricature of what hard-right-wingers think their enemies sound like; and still enjoy no repercussions because his brand of insanity is considered more acceptable than West's in our current orthodoxy.

I doubt it, Aquinas seems to have been the kind of guy who enjoyed intellectual discussion for its own sake. It's worth noting that he wasn't always in 100% agreement with the Church himself and actually got his works condemned by Pope John XXI through the Bishops of Paris, although (besides being obviously annulled since he got canonized about 50 years after his death) the condemnation came long after he started laying out his Five Ways so I don't believe it's likely that he composed those arguments to cover himself from accusations of heresy or insufficient zeal either.

I meant specifically the idea of relative religious tolerance in the dark and middle ages. Yes you have morons like Wise but their not imposing their deluded ideas on other people as opposed to ranking wildly. True there have been areas in the developed world, most specifically Nazi Germany and communist USSR and China where there has been brutal oppression which with the resources available to them are very likely worse than the oppression in the Medieval world but there were few if any areas of tolerance, at least in the European and Med areas like there are in much of the west today.

 

[WolfBear]

but there were few if any areas of tolerance, at least in the European and Med areas like there are in much of the west today.

Poland for Ashkenazi Jews?

 

[Zyobot]

When you actually dig into party platforms as adopted by the parties one thing interestingly stands out: the Republican party platform has changed less over the 20th century than the Democratic Party platform. Even Progressive Republicans of the early 20th century actually fit well into what we would term the "populist right" of the modern period much better than the Progressive Democrats of the same period would fit into the modern Democratic party.

Not denying that, but my point is that "changed less" doesn't mean "stayed 100 percent consistent" — much less that the modern GOP would be BFFs with its 1920s, '50s, or '80s counterparts. Granted, I wouldn't expect the latter three to have deep affection for one another, either, but that still speaks to my original thesis.

In fact, I'd say Coolidge and Taft would align more with Ron Paul and other more "libertarian" Republicans, not so much MAGA or the Eighties Reaganites. As I said, they were insistent on non-interventionism and small government all around, and while Reagan might've been charismatic and well-spoken enough for them to not lambast his character as much as his policy positions, Trump's crass and pseudo-folksy boorishness is another story. But now, I'm derailing again, so I might start a new thread where we can discuss precisely this once I have time, and if you're amenable to that.

 

[WolfBear]

Not denying that, but my point is that "changed less" doesn't mean "stayed 100 percent consistent" — much less that the modern GOP would be BFFs with its 1920s, '50s, or '80s counterparts. Granted, I wouldn't expect the latter three to have deep affection for one another, either, but that still speaks to my original thesis.

In fact, I'd say Coolidge and Taft would align more with Ron Paul and other more "libertarian" Republicans, not so much MAGA or the Eighties Reaganites. As I said, they were insistent on non-interventionism and small government all around, and while Reagan might've been charismatic and well-spoken enough for them to not lambast his character as much as his policy positions, Trump's crass and pseudo-folksy boorishness is another story. But now, I'm derailing again, so I might start a new thread where we can discuss precisely this once I have time, and if you're amenable to that.

What's interesting is that Coolidge and Taft were night and day in regards to immigration. Taft vetoed a literacy test for immigrants while Coolidge signed something much more restrictive with the Immigration Act of 1924 (a literacy test was already made the law of the land ever since 1917).