A discussion on reddit that got me thinking.

[Alazen]

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/33a2ih/white_people_and_the_rest_of_the_world_fought_the/cqixs04

This is such a great explanation of how these people think. They never progress to the stage where you can see the grey shades in everything. They want simple narratives to follow, that's it. But does that mean they're stupid or uneducated? Yeah it probably does.

The problem is, thinking in gray sucks. There's no real good guys, no real bad guys. If you take it far enough you can argue that almost any terrible people in history have good reasons for what they did.

So thinking in black and white is inaccurate, but emotionally I don't blame people for clinging to the idea of heroes and visions.

After thinking about, I've noticed this too. It looks like that despite all of the access to such diverse sources such as books, archaeological sites, etc., there's a noticeable amount who won't move beyond ''Good VS Evil'', ''Freedom/West/Whatever VS Terrorists'', ''White People vs PoC'' (see tumblr), what have you, when talking or writing about something beyond the level of a single man. I wonder if its something all humans are born with that leads to leaning towards such thinking

[MCProductions]

I don't speak for everyone, but part of me prefers a Black and White narrative, at least when it comes to gaming terms. I much prefer FE Awakening's mostly black and white with some moral greyness hinted at in the background, to say FE4's everyone's morally grey sure, but everyone's also a unlikable prick.

I definitely agree with the second quote. It doesn't help that there have been straight up good vs evil moments in history such as WW2, and these events are often talked about more than truly morally grey historic conflicts such as WW1 or Vietnam. I feel conflicts being remembered in this fashion, combined with basic human nature, result in mostly good vs evil stories in fiction.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, the eastern front in WWII could be more accurately described as evil vs Jesus fuck what are you doing to those children! There has never been a god guy in history (except monarchy;)) but there have definitely been unambiguously bad guys in history. That is why I feel as though it's a better history than fiction, but I digress.

[Alazen]

I definitely agree with the second quote. It doesn't help that there have been straight up good vs evil moments in history such as WW2, and these events are often talked about more than truly morally grey historic conflicts such as WW1 or Vietnam.

Which side in WW2 was ''good''? The one with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Showa Japan? Or the one including an island nation with the largest empire at the time, a rising power with racial segregation, and the Soviet Union?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Alazen

[BK-201]

Which side in WW2 was ''good''? The one with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Showa Japan? Or the one including an island nation with the largest empire at the time, a rising power with racial segregation, and the Soviet Union?

Which one was worse? Do you believe all sides were equal in all regards?

[The DanMan]

Which side in WW2 was ''good''? The one with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Showa Japan? Or the one including an island nation with the largest empire at the time, a rising power with racial segregation, and the Soviet Union?

Which side was actively killing people domestically?

Though really, it's more of a case of varying shades of grey vs black.

[blah the Prussian]

Which side in WW2 was ''good''? The one with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Showa Japan? Or the one including an island nation with the largest empire at the time, a rising power with racial segregation, and the Soviet Union?

There is no moral equivalency that can be drawn between the Axis and Allies. The Japanese had government sanctioned sexual slavery, to say nothing of their usage of slave labor. The Nazis were the most fucked up regime to ever exist, with plans to,carry out the worst genocide in history against the Russians, teaching them from birth that they existed to be slaves to the Germans, to say nothing of what they really did. Compared to that, American segregation, British colonialism, and even Soviet gulags are minor.

[Alazen]

Which one was worse? Do you believe all sides were equal in all regards?

The sides not being the same in every way=/=One side was ''good''

Which side was actively killing people domestically?

Though really, it's more of a case of varying shades of grey vs black.

During WW2, or before it? Before the invasion of Poland there was something called the Holodomor.

Also, let's not forget that the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany.

[The DanMan]

During WW2, or before it? Before the invasion of Poland there was something called the Holodomor.

Also, let's not forget that the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany.

Hence why I said it was more of a grey issue; the USSR had it's many issues (alongside the rest of the Allies not being blameless, as you said), but overall the Axis was the significantly worse of the two.

[blah the Prussian]

The sides not being the same in every way=/=One side was ''good''

During WW2, or before it? Before the invasion of Poland there was something called the Holodomor.

Also, let's not forget that the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany.

Holodomor was awful. It's a picnic compared to this, though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

Again, none of this is to diminish the crimes of the allies. The Axis, though, were unambiguously worse. Well, except Italy, they were more pathetic than anything.

[Yojinbo]

Whether the Holodomor was an intentionally triggered event or not remains disputed. Ukrainian nationalists, of course, claim that it has been Stalin's goal to exterminate ukrainians but I don't think that's a very believable claim. To my knowledge most historians agree that it was the result of economic mismanagement.

[blah the Prussian]

If by most historians you mean Stapologists, then yup. Reputable historians like Alan Bullock, though, maintain it was far too incompetent to be unintentional.

[Yojinbo]

OK, to word it slightly more accurately: it wasn't done with the sole purpose of exterminating ukrainians. Mainly because a lot of russians starved to death during that time as well.

[blah the Prussian]

Even worse, then. Stalin wasn't afraid to let people who fell under his warped definition of innocence die. Really, though, does it matter if it was done to exterminate Ukrainians? All that matters is that it was intentional, and most non Russia Today sources agree that it was.

[Phoenix Wright]

we prefer black and white because it's easy. jfk said it well, "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." humans must learn (realize?) that 'easy explanation' does not necessarily mean 'best explanation' on a given topic. the best way to learn is to critically think. reason is humankind's most powerful tool, i feel.

one cannot expect everyone to know even a fraction of something about every topic. but what one can expect, and indeed should expect, of every able person is that, when confronted with a problem, or some question, one can reason an answer. no one should be caught like a deer in the headlights in an ideal world. no one should rely on faith, tradition, or random probabilities to answer difficult problems.

thinking in 'gray' doesn't suck. adding complexity is an extension of knowledge, which simply by itself is rewarding enough, but that is also where progression exists. a society can't progress thinking in black and white. once you get used to critical thinking, it's hard to see things as black and white, so in a way, thinking in a more complex way becomes far easier than its opposite.

i think sagan said something along the lines of, in the original cosmos, "it will not be we who reach alpha centauri and other stars, but it will be a species much like us. but with more of our strengths, and fewer of our weaknesses." the only way to make that change is through the use of reason in all its capacities. thinking in black and white only works to slow/halt that (hopefully inevitable) truth.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Alazen]

Also, at least two of the Allies (United States and Soviet Union) either enabled Nazi Germany or helped to set the stage for WW2. From Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic antics with the failure to support the League of Nations to the Soviet Union supplying Nazi Germany.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Alazen

[Skynstein]

It's really hard to be grey in this world because the bigots and loud conservatives accuse you of being marxist while the tumblrinas and SJWs accuse you of being fascist.

If you want to be grey, be prepared to live the path of the loner, and be even more prepared never to reach positions of power, because the blacks will pick their fellow blacks and the whites will do the same.

[blah the Prussian]

Also, at least two of the Allies (United States and Soviet Union) either enabled Nazi Germany or helped to set the stage for WW2. From Woodrow Wilson's diplomatic antics with the failure to support the League of Nations to the Soviet Union supplying Nazi Germany.

Yes, I am well aware of that. The Soviet Union, it could be argued, was even a aggressor in the early stages of the war. No e of this changes the fact, however, that they were still better than the Nazis.

[eclipse]

It's really hard to be grey in this world because the bigots and loud conservatives accuse you of being marxist while the tumblrinas and SJWs accuse you of being fascist.

If you want to be grey, be prepared to live the path of the loner, and be even more prepared never to reach positions of power, because the blacks will pick their fellow blacks and the whites will do the same.

No, it's plenty possible. As usual, it's the loud people who attract the most attention. The quiet ones in the middle shake their head and go on with their day.

Even though I'm in the middle, I don't feel like I'm alone.

[Rapier]

It's really hard to be grey in this world because the bigots and loud conservatives accuse you of being marxist while the tumblrinas and SJWs accuse you of being fascist.

me.jpg

I've reached a point where I am disgusted with (at least, the most radical) political groups and defenders of ideologies. It is overall a serious matter that tends to turn people into berserkers should you disagree with their position or with what their idols say. The amount of radicalism and irrationality makes me very angry and they successfully manage to turn my stomach. For those reasons, I avoid political discussions as much as possible, unless I'm in for a very good reason (and usually it is me repaying them with the same coin. I've made a few enemies out there).

the best way to learn is to critically think. reason is humankind's most powerful tool, i feel.

Critical thinking is very hard. I think it should be something taught in schools (and let's not mistake critical thinking with demagoguery, which is teaching others to think like you do and then calling it critical thinking), but unfortunately people think offering content is all that our education should provide. I think the tools to interpret said knowledge are as indispensable as the knowledge itself. I wish I had been taught that way, it would've saved me from a lot of trouble or, at the very least, made me less... lost.

About the topic itself, I don't think there is anyone who is located in one of the moral extremes, but I think we can rationalize who is more inclined toward the "white" side and who is incljned toward the "black" side of morality, at least on some cases (as I've pointed before, not being able to draw the line does not mean there's no difference between two opposites, and it also doesn't mean we can't recognize those opposites). Let us take Hitler, who is probably the easiest example. He committed widely known atrocious deeds and those weighed more than whichever good deed he might've done, despite the fact that he loved, despite the fact that he believed in his distorted ideology. An evil person can feel love, can be a good friend, can be charitable, dutiful and loyal. Being inclined toward a black morality does not mean one is void of any "good" within, but ultimately what counts is the weights of their actions.

And I don't think the world is evil, cruel or dark, nor do I think it is good and wonderful. I think the world is amoral, walking on its own legs and ignoring everyone else. But I do think the world has more evil people than good, if not because evil is much more seductive and easy than walking the hard path, and usually people take the easier, more frutiferous (at least it is what it seems at first) path.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Rapier

[Snowy_One]

The way I see it is this. There is a definitive 'white' and 'black', but our eyes can only see in 'blue' and 'orange'. We struggle to do our best with what information we have to determine what the white and what the black is, but we can only see the most extremes of it. Sometimes people have rationals, sometimes people don't realize what they're doing, sometimes a people look back and judge someone in the past by modern standards. However there are also plenty of times when someone does desire to honestly help people unconditionally. When someone holds little more than vitriolic hate in their heart. When a monster is just a monster. We sometimes try to rational it away, claiming that what they did was the right thing because we believe we might do the same thing if caught in the same situation. It's important to remember that there is a massive difference between 'having a reason' and 'being good'. Someone can have a 'good reason' (ending racial discrimination) and take it to a malicious/harmful end (chanting about how to kill members of another race if they don't end their ways).

Remember the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Flamma]

Black and White morality is all propaganda. Very rarely does this ever hold out true. Most conflicts fought over in our History were all Grey'd areas, but back at home, both sides demonized each other, with the victor, or the current dominant world power of our time, writing the pages of history, and putting in some Black and White.

I'll use The Napoleonic Wars as an example.

The wars were all about Napoleon in Europe fighting wars of coalitions. ( That's it. He won all of them except the last 2. And they kept fighting because of little things and stuff that got everyone in Yurop pissed at Nappy when he kicked their asses. ). All his enemies branded Napoleon as public enemy #1, and poured in all their resources to removing him from power. They got so much support because they issued propaganda that literally dehumanized the French and promoted their own cause. All the while, Napoleon had ENORMOUS support from the French People, and owed it not only for being a War Hero, and perhaps being the most glorious leader the French ever had, but also because he accused his enemies of being counterrevolutionaries, who wanted to topple the French Revolutionary ideals. BOTH sides gained a lot of support from their uneducated populace, and BOTH sides succeeded in effectively using propaganda. Typical Black and White.

[Snowy_One]

Black and White morality is all propaganda. Very rarely does this ever hold out true. Most conflicts fought over in our History were all Grey'd areas, but back at home, both sides demonized each other, with the victor, or the current dominant world power of our time, writing the pages of history, and putting in some Black and White.

I'll use The Napoleonic Wars as an example.

The wars were all about Napoleon in Europe fighting wars of coalitions. ( That's it. He won all of them except the last 2. And they kept fighting because of little things and stuff that got everyone in Yurop pissed at Nappy when he kicked their asses. ). All his enemies branded Napoleon as public enemy #1, and poured in all their resources to removing him from power. They got so much support because they issued propaganda that literally dehumanized the French and promoted their own cause. All the while, Napoleon had ENORMOUS support from the French People, and owed it not only for being a War Hero, and perhaps being the most glorious leader the French ever had, but also because he accused his enemies of being counterrevolutionaries, who wanted to topple the French Revolutionary ideals. BOTH sides gained a lot of support from their uneducated populace, and BOTH sides succeeded in effectively using propaganda. Typical Black and White.

The problem with that is that you're utilizing a world view in which the event and its primary repercussions have already played out, all/most of the facts are known, are judging a massive event, and are doing so from the perspective of a 2015 person from Houston. Let me put it another way.

Assume that there are two wives. They love their husbands dearly, work hard to keep the house clean, ensure that their children and guests are cared for, and do their best to be upstanding and helpful citizens. One is married to a murderer whom would have committed suicide long ago if not for his loving wife, however, and doesn't know that her actions are allowing him to go out and commit horrible crimes. Is the first wife good while the second wife evil simply because of a consequence beyond their control that they do not know about? If we were to look at it from an outside view the answer seems clear to us, but that is because we are seeing from a different view point and imposing our own morality and opinions on it to determine which one is right.

That is my reason for that statement. There is black and white morality but how we see it is not determined by our ability to see the black and the white, but by where we stand and what we, as a people, view to be correct regardless of if it is actually correct or not. As a result it is unlikely that morality is determined by humans, but it can be deduced through observation. The simplest answer is always 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. It can be hard at times to see it but the answer is always there.

[Alazen]

So, which side was ''white'' in the battles between the Spanish forces and their allies VS the Triple Alliance?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

Um, neither, because e Spanish were dicks in the colonies but the Triple Alliance weren't much better.