Well there was that trail of tears thing. He just didn't care about the laws, two branches of the government said do it this way he said fuck you and did it his way. I guess you could say he was a good leader whether you want to fallow him or not.Deathmageddon said:
The political and historical context of his actions may be ancilliary to the definition of 'genocide', which he did commit, but they aren't outside of the moral dimensions of those actions; he didn't dream up the idea of subjugating Ireland, is my point - it was the Zeitgeist.Chairman Miaow said:
Has to be said, he wasn't anti-monarchy. He was anti-Charles I. To what extent you believe it is up for debate, but Cromwell tried many measures other than having the King executed. However, he was anti-monarchy in the sense of it having absolute power - that's clear.Haagrum said:
I don't think that you should defend somebody's actions just because they were justifiable by the standards of the people living then, it's like defending witch purges because people were sure they were sent by Satan, or slavery because black people were considered less than whites. He committed atrocities on innocent people because of racism, pure and simple.MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:
Exactly who from history wouldn't be condemned if we held them to modern day standards? Almost every single person, to a man and woman, could be considered a racist, sexist, child abuser, animal abuser.Chairman Miaow said:
That's not even an argument, it's a complete strawman. The zeitgeist of pre-WW2 Germany was that Germany should re-claim lost territory and that jews were to blame for there losses. Should we treat Hitler the way you are treating Cromwell? and who are these people from history we should be condemning that we don't? I certainly know that I condemn anybody who commits certain acts for the acts they commit, regardless of whether or not they were accepted then, based on my own morality. Caligula was a mad mass murderer, Henry VIII was a syphilitic despot, William the Conqueror was a warmongering bastard.MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:
Lol'd. Yeah, he was a trip.Gentleman Adventurer said:
No, because Hitler expanded far beyond the pre-existing trends the idea that, not only were Jews to blame for the German "defeat" in World War I, but that they should be exterminated in mass concentration camps - this notion was not swimming around German political circles before him.Chairman Miaow said:
Plato and Pythagoras were sexists. Gandhi was racist in his early writings. Florence Nightingale was a chauvinist. et cetera.Chairman Miaow said:
You're seriously comparing genocide to sexist or racist leanings? Fine, I think that they were idiots for believing what they did, but they also did amazing things. They are remembered for what they did, not for what they thought. I have no idea why you are willing to defend Cromwell and genocide, but I can't talk to you anymore.MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:
And there we have it. This is how I think of Cromwell. He did some terrible things, and sanctioned other terrible things - but, he also did amazing things.Chairman Miaow said:
Why? Thought we were having an impersonal debate about a historical figure. Didn't realise my defense of Cromwell was actually irritating you ...Chairman Miaow said:
You're comparing Gandhi who led India to independence and inspired non-violent protest for civil rights and freedom movements across the world having racism in his early writings to Cromwell committing genocide! There is a big difference between THINKING all Irish people are horrible people and killing about a third of them and sending their children into slavery.MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:
