Historical "good guys"

[basileus]

I repost zoomar's poll with the option, so we can have a look at the results ;)

Personally I have no doubts the USA will win :(

[Hymie Goldberg]

People need to put other or none of the above in thier polls.


I say the Catholic Church was, is, and always shall be the greatest force of goodness in history.

The Catholic Church has certainly educated, cured, aided, fed, clothed more destitute and disenfranchised people than any of the above choices. I doubt anyone would attempt to argue this.

PS--Before the flames start--The Spanish Inquisition was political, run by the Spanish gov't, not by the Church.

Before you talk about the Spanish priests burning the Mesoamerican literature, note that those were the the actions of individuals. Official Church policy has never approved of destroying cultural patterns. The Spanish Priests in America took thier orders from the Spanish Crown, not Rome.

[Grey Wolf]

In the end I went for modern European social democracy as much of what I admire about Britain has a lot in common with this, rather than with the more imperialistic elements of the empire. Of course, the British Empire did a lot to spread the ideas of democratic governance in a liberal democratic system around the world, so certainly cannot be ignored for that. Its laws also underlie the civic laws of a large number of other states, including the USA and its justice and legal system is admired the world over. Its efforts against the slave trade and its policing of the seas may have had some unfortunate spin-offs, but are certainly not to be condemned out of hand.

However, in terms of advancing forward into the modern society we have now, social democratic tradition as epitomised by pensions, health and education provision and the empowerment of communities and organisations of ordinary people cannot be under-estimated.

Grey Wolf

[NapoleonXIV]

The really sad thing is how many of these might reasonably go on the villain's list as well vs how many of the villains are unmistakable. I suppose that goes to prove Augustine's notion of evil or the old adage, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

[Tyr]

I say Britain for certain, sure I'm biased but I do genually believe it is so.
The catholics were far from good imo, I'm not a fan of religion and the catholic church itself is not a good thing- there may be some members of it which are very good people though the actual organisation...

[G.Bone]

Hmmm...the Roman-Grecio civ is winning..

[zoomar]

I voted for the British Empire myself, although early Christianity, the USA, and Social Democracy are also high in my books. All of the options I listed were all societies which on balance I believe have been "good" for humanity in general. As a religious person, the one thing which kept me from putting European Social Democracy first is the strongly secularist nature of Europe today - which leads to too many "greys" and not enough "blacks" and "whites" in how modern Europe looks at the world. I know others will argue with this.

[paladine]

all of those people who voted for the US, i guess i shouldnt be surprised after seeing the same opionion expressed over and over agian.

1: The US is the only country i can think of which, not just defends its current governments actions, but defends the actions of every past government, in fact it tries to give the impression "in the entire history of its existance our great nation has NEVER done ANYTHING wrong" in fact it would probably take me over an hour to think of more than one or two exceptions, i had to dig long and hard through history books, i used to be caught up in the patriotism, untill i discovered more and more things,no-one knew about, more and more things that our country had done wrong. some it even twisted to make "herioc episodes", the VERY many teqniques to circumvent election, failsafes included built into the constitution.

in EVERY war where we've had planes with bombs we've bombed hospitals as primary targets-as one example, if you want more just reply i could write a book of 500+ pages of the things America has covered up and done wrong.


I do agree that with the british empire though and-besides america-i think america is the only black spot with alot of votes that i see there. with cristianity it realy depends on how earlyu, the church got ugly and started persecuting mighty fast.

[paladine]

my mistake didnt see the "prior to its adoption" clause, anyway it was okay before that, but then again, it wasnt much of a historical force before that either.

[paladine]

if a nation doesnt go secular, than your chances of persecution at some point in time are well over 60%, look over it

[hammo1j]

I voted USA for its constitution. It was a shame they didn't put something in there outlawing racism, which caused the US so much trouble, but they got the bit right about making sure the power of the state never became too strong.

[carlton_bach]

Folks, this needs to be a multi-option poll. with a Likert scale.

[Wendell]

1. British Empire
2. United States of America
3. Early Christianity, as it was more Judaic
4. Claasical Greece

[Tielhard]

Why no Socialists, Bolsheviks or Communards to vote for? Without at least an other box I contend this poll is a subversion of the democratic principles often espoused on this board!

[basileus]

Why no Socialists, Bolsheviks or Communards to vote for? Without at least an other box I contend this poll is a subversion of the democratic principles often espoused on this board!

Because by now they are in the sewers of history, just like they deserved (I mean Stalism, Maoism, pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung etc.). One day also the USA of today will follow, but we won't live to see this. For Socialism you have the Scandivnavian Social Democracies; arent' they enogh for you?

[Superdude]

I voted USA because the USA kicks ass.

[LordKalvan]

It might be argued that the oppressions and deaths committed in the name of "true socialism" have mostly been a typical trait of young regimes, and that these would have improved with time (as PRC is doing, btw).
By the same token. all religions (and in particular the catolic faith) should be disqualified, on the basis of the enormous number of men and women killed to prove a theological point. Even nowadays, there are strong resurgencies of fundamentalism (and crusading ideals) in both the Christian and the islamic faith.

OTOH, for the purpose of a poll, which must be simplified to a maximum, I will say that socialdemocracy (defined as Northern European brand) is good enough for me.

[Tielhard]

Superdude: "I voted USA because the USA kicks ass."

Kwel!

I always think that any super power able to beat the crap out of a small donkey should be voted "history's good guys"!

[Hendryk]

We should be wary of the notion of "historical good guys", especially as the poll puts on an equal footing actual countries, abstract political ideologies and even religions. It seems there's a lot of wishful thinking and just plain tautology at work here.
For example, including Christianity but only prior to its adoption as state religion seems custom-made for the forum's Protestants.
Another example is "Confucian China". Take my word for it, it's as vague a concept as "Christian Western civilization". Does one mean the actual Confucian canon, the Confucian ethos that is part and parcel of East Asian civilizations whether they call it by that name or not, or the use (itself subject to historical change) of Confucianism as a state ideology by Imperial China?
Besides, how does one define a "good guy" in the first place?

[LordKalvan]

Besides, how does one define a "good guy" in the first place?

that's easy: a good guy is one of mine :D

[Max Sinister]

I'd have preferred if we could vote for several options. I'd have voted for the Greeks, Social democracy, though early Christianity, early Islam and Confucianism weren't too bad either. Even the US are "good guys" for a long time of their history, though not today.

[MrP]

Early Islam doesn't have a single vote? How can that be? :eek: It's the only one bereft!

[Tacitus]

I'd have preferred if we could vote for several options. I'd have voted for the Greeks, Social democracy, though early Christianity, early Islam and Confucianism weren't too bad either. Even the US are "good guys" for a long time of their history, though not today.

Hmmm. The US are not good guys today. Why is this so? Is it because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or is there some over reason behind this statement? :confused: If it's because of Iraq, then could you honestly state that Saddam's Iraq was a "good guy" while the occupied and newly democratized Iraq is the historical "bad guy." Maybe both the US and Saddam's Iraq are "bad" but many could argue that the latter is far worse than the former. :)

[Leo Caesius]

If it's because of Iraq, then could you honestly state that Saddam's Iraq was a "good guy" while the occupied and newly democratized Iraq is the historical "bad guy."I don't think that Iraq is the sole reason for international ill will against the US, but it came to me as news that Iraq has been democratized.

Which qualities of a democracy are found in Iraq today?


Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership -- Check
The right to private property and privacy -- Check
A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights -- Not yet.
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law -- See above
An independent judiciary -- See above
A system of checks and balances between branches of government -- See above
Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest -- Sadly, no.
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources -- Nope.
Freedom of association -- No (not with martial law and all that).
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities -- Nope
A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society -- Definitely not.It should be interesting to see what kind of constitution the new government drafts. That will address a lot of these issues that are preventing Iraq from being fully democratic.

[Hermanubis]

I Voted for The Roman Empire, sense The Byzantine Empire is not on the Poll, so the Roman Option most include them too…


(I would have voted for Napoleonic France and USA if the Poll was multi-optional; and why can’t we vote for post-Constantine Christianity? Medieval Europeans aren’t so bad, once you get to know them… :p )

[Wendell]

I don't think that Iraq is the sole reason for international ill will against the US, but it came to me as news that Iraq has been democratized.

Which qualities of a democracy are found in Iraq today?


Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership -- Check
The right to private property and privacy -- Check
A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights -- Not yet.
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law -- See above
An independent judiciary -- See above
A system of checks and balances between branches of government -- See above
Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest -- Sadly, no.
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources -- Nope.
Freedom of association -- No (not with martial law and all that).
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities -- Nope
A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society -- Definitely not.It should be interesting to see what kind of constitution the new government drafts. That will address a lot of these issues that are preventing Iraq from being fully democratic.
How many of those were implemented in West Germany and/or occupied Japan within two years after the war's end?

[Leo Caesius]

How many of those were implemented in West Germany and/or occupied Japan within two years after the war's end?I don't know when the German or Japanese constitutions were drafted, but both countries had a functional middle class and civil society, two essential prerequisites for a democratic society which Iraq completely lacks.

For those reasons alone it's silly to compare Iraq to Germany or Japan. There are many more reasons not to go there, but those are probably the best.

In any case, you're quibbling. Either Iraq is "democratized," as Wozza claims, or it is not, as I am claiming.

[Tielhard]

How can you tell unless the pair of you agree on a definition of democracy?

[Wozza]

In any case, you're quibbling. Either Iraq is "democratized," as Wozza claims, or it is not, as I am claiming.[/QUOTE]

Did I claim this? Probably? It is probably more reasonable to claim that Iraq is in the process of becoming a democracy, and certainly is has had a "democratic" election.

I agree that comparisons with Japan and Germany are not necessarily good. Japan was highly factional, with the more liberal faction backed by the Emperor. The German middle class were pro-constitutional.

However. pro-liberal and pro-constitutional urges should not be confused with being pro-democracy. A good example of this is Oppenhoff, who the Americans made Mayor of Aachen in March 1945.

[Tielhard]

So Wozza what is democracy?

[Wozza]

Why do you have to ask difficult questions?

We can say what it is definitely not - despotism where the state belongs to a ruling individual. (Though this applies to numerous systems)
We can say that it is not aristocracy or oligarchy - the state is not run by a relatively fixed elite - in either the people's interests or their own.

It is a state that exists for the general interest. It is a state with an open elite where the views of the people are strongly represented in decision making.
This pre-supposes both a degree of unity, and paradoxically a degree of atomisation amongst the people - political parties should not really divide along clan/tribal lines (see Iraq!)
of the people,. by the people and for the people sums it up.

Neither the US nor Britain is a pure democracy (see monarchy, House of Lords and electoral college, and a tendency for political elites to emerge from certain groups) but both governments are clearly democractic in purpose and function.

[Tielhard]

I note in passing that Leo could think democracy were something completely different.

I also note that your definition is a sub-set of my own but that some of what you say is outside my idea of what a democracy is.

Without agreement on what democracy is what point is there in the argument?

[Wozza]

I note in passing that Leo could think democracy were something completely different.

I also note that your definition is a sub-set of my own but that some of what you say is outside my idea of what a democracy is.

Without agreement on what democracy is what point is there in the argument?

There are features which indicate a democratic system.

Are you saying there is no such thing as democracy because we cannot agree what it is? Or simply that it is a difficult debate.

I might ask you at what height the sky starts, how it differs from the air at ground level and so on. People would have different answers, yet plainly there is a sky, it is blue and aeroplanes can fly in it and we breathe it in. Once deprived of access to its air we die.

Not being able to decide at what height it starts does not change its properties.

[Tielhard]

"Are you saying there is no such thing as democracy because we cannot agree what it is? Or simply that it is a difficult debate."

Neither, I am saying if you do not define and agree what you mean by democracy then the debate is essentially meaningless.

Consider, if I define 'tar' as sticky black stuff beleiving you do too and you define 'tar' as a member of the RN believing I define it this way as well. We can have a debate about how well 'tar' keeps a sailing ship together. We can interact and answer one anothers points from our different perspectives. We might get confused at points but the debate can proceed. The debate is however meaningless as we are talking about two very different things.

So too your debate over democracy.

[benedict XVII]

"Are you saying there is no such thing as democracy because we cannot agree what it is? Or simply that it is a difficult debate."

Neither, I am saying if you do not define and agree what you mean by democracy then the debate is essentially meaningless.

Consider, if I define 'tar' as sticky black stuff beleiving you do too and you define 'tar' as a member of the RN believing I define it this way as well. We can have a debate about how well 'tar' keeps a sailing ship together. We can interact and answer one anothers points from our different perspectives. We might get confused at points but the debate can proceed. The debate is however meaningless as we are talking about two very different things.

So too your debate over democracy.

But I thought this was how any debate is happening? We shouldn't be debating anything any more, then? How boring! :rolleyes:

[Leo Caesius]

Well, whatever your definition of democracy may be, unless you're willing to set the only prerequisite to be a pro-American faction being in power, I think we can agree that it will be years before we see it. The rebuilding is a necessary first step, but the organization in charge of that is a hopelessly corrupt, shambling monopoly. A little competition would help pick up the pace and keep Halliburton on its toes, but unfortunately the conditions currently prevailing there make it an unfriendly environment for business. And that's another thing - you cannot have a fully participatory government without first making sure that the people have a way of participating. If the country is run by a close-knit cabal of wealthy westernized Iraqis while 95% of the country lives beneath the poverty level, then you don't have a democracy. You have Haiti. We also need to rebuild the civil society which Saddam was in the process of dismantling during his last years in office and which we dealt the final blow to. Both of these things will take decades.

This is complicated by the fact that we cannot prevent the flow of insurgents into the country, and so even if we were to pacify the local populations, we'd still have suicide bombings and the like - not exactly conducive towards the establishment of democratic institutions.

As I said before, I'd like to think that the constitution will make a big difference in the direction of Iraq's development. The Iraqi barlaman has been given the opportunity to lay the foundations for its country's future, and I will be watching this very closely.

[Faeelin]

How many of those were implemented in West Germany and/or occupied Japan within two years after the war's end?

How many Americans and Japanese and Germans were dying daily two years after WW2 ended due to guerillas?

Anyone?

[Wozza]

How many Americans and Japanese and Germans were dying daily two years after WW2 ended due to guerillas?

Anyone?

Surprisingly few, none I think but there may be exceptions. However the length and sheer thoroughness of the war partly explains that.
Also guerilla operations against overwhelming force have a largely psychological purpose. Allied willingness to hold down Japan and Germany was pretty clear.
Perhaps a more interesting parallel is the twenty year anti-soviet partisan war in the Ukraine?

[Leo Caesius]

Surprisingly few, none I think but there may be exceptions. However the length and sheer thoroughness of the war partly explains that.
The Iraqis have been at war for 12 years.

[Wozza]

The Iraqis have been at war for 12 years.

Not against the US though (I can see you might argue otherwise), a lightning conquest simply left untouched resistance, with no central authority to order surrender.

External support would also be a key factor I did not mention.

[Rick Robinson]

What exactly was the intended metric here, i.e., what is a "good guy?" I tried to balance two very distinct and unrelated things - what system sets a good example for living under (as an ordinary schmo, not a honcho), and historical entertainment value.

In terms of what is good to live under, modern European social democracy wins hands down, but its historical entertainment value is up there with watching paint dry. Europe in the first half of last century had great entertainment value, but you wouldn't want to live there!

I'm proud to be 'Murican, and all in all we haven't done that bad, but no sooner had we finally tried seriously to deal with the race thing than we started taking Ayn Rand far too seriously - and anyway, our history just isn't all that exciting. Republics do poorly on such entertainments as royal mistresses; neither Sally Hemings nor Monica Lewinsky are exactly up there in the running with Diane de Poitiers or even Nell Gwynne.

British Empire = pretty good balance. Fair human decency as empires go (including giving it up with grace and even some panache), and overall good value for your entertainment dollar. (Pound? Euro?)

-- Rick

[Hendryk]

What exactly was the intended metric here, i.e., what is a "good guy?" I tried to balance two very distinct and unrelated things - what system sets a good example for living under (as an ordinary schmo, not a honcho), and historical entertainment value.

In terms of what is good to live under, modern European social democracy wins hands down, but its historical entertainment value is up there with watching paint dry. Europe in the first half of last century had great entertainment value, but you wouldn't want to live there!
I'd have to agree with that. Modern European social democracy is to political systems what a Volvo station wagon is to the car world. Indispensable, reliable, sensible and safe, but no fun at all to drive. But if what you value in a political system is how much it can deliver to how many, then that's the only choice.

Now, for a system that both makes life comparatively bearable for those living in it and provides historical entertainment value, my vote would go (predictably, some would say :rolleyes: ), to Confucian China. China actually had one of the world's highest standards of living for most of its history, until it was overtaken by the industrializing Western countries in the 19th century, and its socio-economic infrastructure was destroyed by a century of foreign occupation, civil wars, anarchy and political lunacy (one might argue its current rise is simply a reclaiming of its former status). And in the entertainment value department, well, between the plotting at the Imperial court and the barbarian invasions, there certainly was enough to keep oneself busy. In that regard I recommend checking out the life of Yang Guifei, an Imperial concubine who almost brought down the Tang dynasty.

[Wozza]

[QUOTE=Hendryk]I'd have to agree with that. Modern European social democracy is to political systems what a Volvo station wagon is to the car world. Indispensable, reliable, sensible and safe, but no fun at all to drive. But if what you value in a political system is how much it can deliver to how many, then that's the only choice.

Well, as the social democracies are steadily dying out, going bankrupt, have shocking unemployment and lack the will to take any morally challenging decision to use force in the world this might not prove so apt.
immigration risks creating increasing tensions, particularly as relatie numbers grow.

It might be argued that social democracy is completely unsustainable as a concept- undermining the economic need to work, create jobs and create children.

[Hendryk]

Well, as the social democracies are steadily dying out, going bankrupt, have shocking unemployment and lack the will to take any morally challenging decision to use force in the world this might not prove so apt.
immigration risks creating increasing tensions, particularly as relatie numbers grow.

It might be argued that social democracy is completely unsustainable as a concept- undermining the economic need to work, create jobs and create children.
It seems that in a developed, post-industrial society, the choice is between high structural unemployment, and having "working poor", i.e. people who may have a job but are still living in poverty. Social-democracy takes the former option, and tries to make sure that the unemployed still have a decent life. It may not produce fancy rates of growth, but at least what growth there is gets spread around, instead of being concentrated among the richest parts of society.
I was a university student for 9 years; for most of that time, my father was unemployed, and I'm the first of five children. How many economic systems are there around that would have enabled me to complete my studies without working myself to death flipping burgers?
Now I've joined the professional world, but I have a medical condition that requires costly treatment and expensive medication. I get it all (mostly) for free. If you live in America, ask around you to see how people with Crohn's Disease live. Well, perhaps you'll use this as an argument that social-democracy undermines the incentives to stay healthy?
As for the "creating children" part, come back to me when you've checked the birth rates of France and Russia.

[Superdude]

Which are incredibly low.

[Wozza]

It seems that in a developed, post-industrial society, the choice is between high structural unemployment, and having "working poor", i.e. people who may have a job but are still living in poverty. Social-democracy takes the former option, and tries to make sure that the unemployed still have a decent life. It may not produce fancy rates of growth, but at least what growth there is gets spread around, instead of being concentrated among the richest parts of society.

Hmm, except France and Britain have similar levels of poverty. Much of the spending ends up recycled to the middle class and those who do m

I was a university student for 9 years; for most of that time, my father was unemployed, and I'm the first of five children. How many economic systems are there around that would have enabled me to complete my studies without working myself to death flipping burgers?

I do not want to comment in detail on your personal circumstances you understand, but in a more dynamic economic system your father may have had work? And, please not offence, but was what you did "worth" (ghastly term in relation to education) the rest of society subsidising you for 9 years? Hard questions all round.

Now I've joined the professional world, but I have a medical condition that requires costly treatment and expensive medication. I get it all (mostly) for free. If you live in America, ask around you to see how people with Crohn's Disease live. Well, perhaps you'll use this as an argument that social-democracy undermines the incentives to stay healthy?
The US health system is not a model I would follow. But the picture can be mixed- uninsured cancer patients in theUS have higher survival rates than cancer patients under the NHS in the UK.
The UK system is not one to follow either - interestingly UK public services are the least free market in Europe. It could be argued that some of the best apsects of social democracy make good use of market mechanisms

As for the "creating children" part, come back to me when you've checked the birth rates of France and Russia.
Agreed, the birth rates decline as you move east. But, US-Europe comparison is more interesting - Russia has some fairly huge variables

[Hendryk]

Which are incredibly low.
What I was getting at is that France, with one of the world's most generous welfare packages, manages a birth rate of 1.94, a bit low but high by European standards. In Russia, meanwhile, where life is as Hobbesian as it gets, birth rates have hit rock bottom, and the country loses some 300,000 people a year.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Upon reflection, I'm beginning to wonder whether this poll was really a good idea. After all, once you start to think about it, EVERYONE'S a good guy, at least in their own eyes. Furthermore, most everyone does things which are good and things which are bad, though the proportion of actions differs wildly from state to state. A lot of this voting is more for personal preference than any universal notion of "good" or "evil" anyway.

Yes, I know I voted for the Brits, but that was before I thought about it.

[zoomar]

Upon reflection, I'm beginning to wonder whether this poll was really a good idea. After all, once you start to think about it, EVERYONE'S a good guy, at least in their own eyes. Furthermore, most everyone does things which are good and things which are bad, though the proportion of actions differs wildly from state to state. A lot of this voting is more for personal preference than any universal notion of "good" or "evil" anyway.

Yes, I know I voted for the Brits, but that was before I thought about it.


You think too much. The poll was not to get a relativistic view, but what each responder personally considered to be the "best" from his/her prejudices. If I had it to do over again, however, I'd have not mixed apples and oranges so much - and had an "other"

[George Carty]

How many Americans and Japanese and Germans were dying daily two years after WW2 ended due to guerillas?

Anyone?

Surprisingly few, none I think but there may be exceptions. However the length and sheer thoroughness of the war partly explains that.


Also, because (Germany) an Anglo-American withdrawal would abandon them to the slaughter, rape and pillage of the vengeful Red Army, or (Japan) because they were conditioned to obey the Emperor and the Emperor surrendered.

[wkwillis]

At different times all of these were the best systems going. Even the Greeks with their slavery were slightly civilized compared to the competition.
Hey, you know why the early Moslems kicked ass? Because they were Americans!
They came into town, cut taxes, got rid of the local ruling class, and accepted you into their culture. By the time they got to Spain they had trouble finding someone that was pure Arab to be reign, let alone rule, because they interbred so freely and let anyone become an Arab.

[fhaessig]

Given that the choice spans most of Recorded history, it should be possible to answer multiple choices. E.g. I'd have liked to answer Napoleonic France ( or rather evolutionary France, but the choice was not provided ), in addition to my choice about current european democracy. It wasn't possible.