Had FDR Lived Until 1948(& Still Been POTUS)Would HE Have Recognized Israel?

This is the problem with judging historical figures. All too often, we try to hold them to today's morals and standards without regard for the time they lived in. For example, by today's standards, Abraham Lincoln would be considered a huge racist and likely card carrying member of the KKK. By the standards of 1860, he was radically liberal on civil rights. Theodore Roosevelt too would be called a racist and white supremacist today. But in 1900 he was, at worst, moderate in his views and even invited a black man into the White House for dinner, something no President had ever done before. Advancing the cause of civil rights and racial equality is a process that moves step by step. We can't expect people who lived over 100 years ago to hold to the same moral code that we aspire to today. Even when people knew that what they were proposing didn't go far enough to advance that cause, they also knew what they could and could not do based on the attitudes of the times.

You beat me to mentioning TR's dinner with Booker T Washington. Unfortunately that set off a wave of race riots and lynchings.

I mean the act that convinced John Wilkes Booth to murder Lincoln was hearing about a speech Lincoln had given about why giving voting rights to educated blacks and black ACW veterans might possibly be a good idea.

The past was a horrible horrible place.
 
People are complex creatures and they are unfortunately products of their time and most people who lived decades ago held views that would be considered noxious today. Lincoln at least early in his career wanted to send freed slaves to Liberia. FDR put an anti-Catholic former Klansman on the supreme court (yes I know Black moderated some of his views over time but he was never a leader on the issue of civil rights). When FDR didn't invite my fellow Ohio State alum Jesse Owens to the White House after the Olympics, Owens said, "Hitler didn't snub me, our President snubbed me." He said this during a Republican Party rally (Owens was a Republican).

I did read that FDR snubbed & never invited Owens to the White House, which was disgusting.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I did read that FDR snubbed & never invited Owens to the White House, which was disgusting.
Unfortunately, that was a product of the times. FDR was a Democrat. And at that time, the South was heavily Democratic. Anyone who wanted to be President as a Democrat needed the "Solid South" to win. But invite a black man into the White House, and the South will suddenly be far less Solid for you. Reprehensible, yes. But that's how it was then. (Note: I'm not excusing FDR's actions here. He should have invited Owens to the White House. Just trying to provide background for why he wasn't)
 

Marc

Donor
Keep in mind that the details of the horror of the Holocaust became public after his death and the end of war in Europe. And that changed a whole lot of sentiment; politically as well as socially.
 
This is the problem with judging historical figures. All too often, we try to hold them to today's morals and standards without regard for the time they lived in. For example, by today's standards, Abraham Lincoln would be considered a huge racist and likely card carrying member of the KKK. By the standards of 1860, he was radically liberal on civil rights. Theodore Roosevelt too would be called a racist and white supremacist today. But in 1900 he was, at worst, moderate in his views and even invited a black man into the White House for dinner, something no President had ever done before. Advancing the cause of civil rights and racial equality is a process that moves step by step. We can't expect people who lived over 100 years ago to hold to the same moral code that we aspire to today. Even when people knew that what they were proposing didn't go far enough to advance that cause, they also knew what they could and could not do based on the attitudes of the times.

Not everybody in 1945 was an anti-Semite. My point wasn't that we should "judge" historical figures by "today's standards." I'm saying that just because Roosevelt's opinions were common in the 1940s doesn't mean they were okay. Racism is widely considered wrong today, but it was also wrong in 1945 regardless of whether most people felt otherwise at the time. Do Roosevelt's personal views outweigh his accomplishments? No. But we should be honest with ourselves and be consistent in disavowing racism. If we say that FDR's personal views are excusable because he lived in a racist culture, doesn't that mean his decision to intern Japanese-Americans - a racist policy that resulted from a prejudiced attitude towards the Japanese - could by extension be excusable too? It wasn't, even if that decision was popular at the time because it reflected the bigotry of the time period.

I don't think you're trying to say that FDR's private comments/beliefs were justified. Neither am I trying to say that FDR's flaws and mistakes made him a bad person, or that we should ignore the wider social context he existed in. As @David T has pointed out, FDR had a complicated relationship with Jews and towards the end of his life he championed the idea of a Jewish state. Many of FDR's key advisers were Jews, and compared to many of his contemporaries Roosevelt was ahead of his time. We have to take this into account when evaluating his legacy. If FDR had been born a hundred years later his views on race would probably have been different. But he wasn't, and we need to accept the full range of his views and actions in order to fairly assess Roosevelt as a man and as a President.
 
Not everybody in 1945 was an anti-Semite. My point wasn't that we should "judge" historical figures by "today's standards." I'm saying that just because Roosevelt's opinions were common in the 1940s doesn't mean they were okay. Racism is widely considered wrong today, but it was also wrong in 1945 regardless of whether most people felt otherwise at the time. Do Roosevelt's personal views outweigh his accomplishments? No. But we should be honest with ourselves and be consistent in disavowing racism. If we say that FDR's personal views are excusable because he lived in a racist culture, doesn't that mean his decision to intern Japanese-Americans - a racist policy that resulted from a prejudiced attitude towards the Japanese - could by extension be excusable too? It wasn't, even if that decision was popular at the time because it reflected the bigotry of the time period.

I don't think you're trying to say that FDR's private comments/beliefs were justified. Neither am I trying to say that FDR's flaws and mistakes made him a bad person, or that we should ignore the wider social context he existed in. As @David T has pointed out, FDR had a complicated relationship with Jews and towards the end of his life he championed the idea of a Jewish state. Many of FDR's key advisers were Jews, and compared to many of his contemporaries Roosevelt was ahead of his time. We have to take this into account when evaluating his legacy. If FDR had been born a hundred years later his views on race would probably have been different. But he wasn't, and we need to accept the full range of his views and actions in order to fairly assess Roosevelt as a man and as a President.

@SsgtC I think we can also acknowledge that FDR - or any historical figure - was a "product of the times" while criticizing the poor standards of the time he lived in.
 
Top