Why is it that throughout history no matter how great an evil was whether they were the Huns, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union etc there are always good people that stand up against evil and no matter how few there are the good people almost always succeed?
Is it human nature to rise up to a challenge and fight evil or is it just survival instinct?
Napoleon was not evil. Power hungry and overly ambitious? Sure. But he improved France and set the framework for a more egalitarian Europe. The Napoleonic wars were a result of the aristocratic establishment being fearful of the ideals of the French revolution spreading. Napoleon fought back. Hardly his fault he was so good at it.
The world is a theater of wills. One man's Will is evil while another man's Will is good.
noble men diffuse evil where it is found
ignoble men corrupt good where it is found
men without Will are sinply caught in the crossfire, swept up by forces stronger than they, in accordance to their disposition.
Define "succeed". Why, yes, if you're at the bottom, eventually there's bound to be a change to the better, and it's not viable to keep killing millions of people all the time, because eventually you'll run out of people you can afford to kill. That's not success by good people, that's just the natural process of nations evolving and dying.
Because being "evil" is very energy consuming, being indifferent isn't.
Just because evil doesn't reign doesn't mean good necessary does. Someone from our future might argue that because there's famine even in very wealthy modern societies, those societies are indifferent to their problems (not necessary evil, as they do not actively try to enforce it, but not trying to improve either).
United States is one of the few countries that fight war not because of any benefit but for human rights.
fight against British tyranny
fight against unjust treatment of African American
fight against corrupt Spanish influences
fight against German world domination
fight against racism and stopping the holocaust
preventing dictators in 3rd world countries that want to take advantage of their poor people as human factory and promotes Human rights
Fuck you and your uninformed notions of "evil" and "good".
Jesus christ this fucking board is a trainwreck.
People thinking the gauls were vikings and /phil/antrophical 12 year olds posing "deep" questions with terms like evil and good.
Jesus christ I fucking hate this fucking site
FUCK THIS PIECE OF SHIT WEBSITE
I better be getting fucking trolled right now
I had such high hopes for this board, but everything 4chan touches turns to shit.
Almost nothing in your post is true, objectively. NOTHING.
I fucking love history, but I fucking hate cunts like you who for the shittiest fucking reasons make history this fucking simple and incorrect.
America is basically the only country which fights for heroic reasons
fight for your shekels, butthurt because britain chips in
no taxation without representation!!
niggers work cheaper than workers, its putting out my business
i need more brown ppl making shekels
if i sell this and this to britbongs, ill make shekels, i can try out my military aswell for shekels
lots of shekels to be done, sellling pots and frying pans to britbongs aswell
oh noes this system hurts my shekels, cant stand for that, need to protect my shekels
america, the most disgusting country on earth, selling their own mothers for money
even the latest UN speech of obongo implied nothing but
>my democrazy gud, it makes shekels
>u want shekels too? go democrazy!
tax evasion and wanting injun clay
no muh slave economy
muh manifest destiny
muh day that will live in infamy
muh world hegemony
What defines good and evil in this case? History is rarely ever so black and white. People that you listed as evil were simply the losers. While certain groups you mentioned indeed had wicked beliefs, in many cases, the victors were not necessarily good.
>fight against corrupt Spanish influences
Lel, The Spic-American war is the first "Bad Guy" war of America in an international scale
>America being the aggressor party.
>Picks a fight on a weakened Euro power.
>Starts war on the most dubious of incidents.
>Claims to liberate Spanish Colonies.
>...only to say LEL WE WERE JUST JOKING :DDD and claim said colonies.
>Claims to uphold Democracy while simultaneously ending a Latin American Republic and Asia's first democracy.
Russia was the initial aggressor towards France so they still started it. The napoleonic wars were just highly agressive defense against a coalition that never wanted peace with France.
If someone is motivated by forces of good such as love of his family, a desire to help others etc will have greater inner strength to draw on than someone who is motivated by forces of evil such as the desire to kill or steal.
Therefore the good person will 9/10 times have stronger endurance than the evil person and will eventually defeat evil.
Cause ideologies will always clash. The winner has theirs become the prevalent one, and is thus recognized as the good guy.
Yes I'm arguing subjective morality. Just because it's subjective doesn't make it a bad thing.
I do not think it is fair that he gets credit for this.
>“My decision to destroy the authority of the blacks in Saint Domingue (Haiti) is not so much based on considerations of commerce and money, as on the need to block for ever the march of the blacks in the world.”
Also i would disagree about the Napoleonic wars being the result of a fearful aristocratic establishment, if they were wouldn't America have thrown its lot in with France? Why did Napoleon turn Holland BACK into a monarchy? Why did he make himself emperor? Why was he given to such wanton nepotism?
Napoleon and the hypocritical liberals who supported him then and now thought the world would be a better place if they were in charge, the world disagreed.
The USSR collapsed because of a multitude of reasons. Their puppet states needed more funding than the US puppets, their economic model wasn't particularly effective and the lessening of government control and censorship over the civilian population meant that people realised the west was better off and started complaining and getting miffed by it. Russian loss in Afghanistan was closer to being caused by Soviet collapse rather than causing it.
There is no absolute good and evil. The reason good men win wars is because history is written by the victors.
If the Nazi's had won WW2, schoolchildren would be getting tours of Hiroshima instead of Auschwitz.
>no matter how few there are the good people almost always succeed?
Well there are many genocides that haave happend and happen even today and no one stands up to fight because they die
I will agree with this partly.
But people who knowingly take innocent human lives and infringe upon the rights(human etc..)/safety/wellbeing/ of others and those they care for, where they have no justification nor right, legally morally and otherwise are definitely wrong and such things can rightly be labeled evil
>There is no absolute good and evil.
I would say things such as theft, murder, rape,slavery, genocide and torture of innocents, are all things that can be termed varying degrees of 'evil'
What are you saying?
It's the other way around.
The good guys are always portrayed as the evil ones by the actual bad guys. Then after the good guys are defeated and evil has won, all the evil ones can throw a party about how "good" they are and how marvelous their victory over the evil ones was.
Not that Anon, but Jackson is sometimes very popular for his anti-bank and anti-fed actions & attitudes. The Trail of Tears was pretty awful, but frankly on that front he was weaving the same pattern as everyone else... if anything Jackson at least didn't dick around about it and pretend he was doing anything other than displacing natives.
Eh. Wouldn't choose the words "fight evil".
Hstory is written by the victors (kinda)
In a conflict both sides paint the other as bad and in the wrong
A lot of times nations would fight for another for fear that they would be next. France feared the growth of Germany WW2.
Or because they would lose something in a conflict (economic/military ally)
However there has been research conducted on the matter of people opposing aggressors. 6 month babies were shown a video of 2 shapes moving and not only identified the "aggressor" but also liked the "victim" shape more.
So perhaps there is a part of us that wants to fight injustice, although I personally think itd be for survival
The western sense of good and evil is mostly inspired by the christian tradition which is responsible for inspiring men to commit countless crimes. The very notion of good and evil is itself an evil; it assumes one side is not worth protection or forgiveness while another is wholly righteous. The western media propagate this fallacy (probably because of the Jewish influence in media) and its led to prejudice the world over.
>but frankly on that front he was weaving the same pattern as everyone else
yeah, except for the supreme court which he illegally disobeyed because apparently the law of the land doesn't apply when it concerns natives on valuable land
Immediately after the war, Dodge proposed enslaving the Plains Indians and forcing them “to do the grading” on the railroad beds, “with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away”. Union army veterans were to be the “overseers” of this new class of slaves. Dodge’s proposal was rejected; the U.S. government decided instead to try to kill as many Indians as possible.
In his memoirs, Sherman has high praise for Thomas Clark Durant, the vice president of the Union Pacific Railroad, as “a person of ardent nature, of great ability and energy, enthusiastic in his undertaking”. Durant was also the chief instigator of the infamous Credit Mobilier scandal, one of the most shocking examples of political corruption in U.S. history. Sherman himself had invested in railroads before the war, and he was a consummate political insider, along with Durant, Dodge, and his brother, Senator John Sherman.
President Grant made his old friend Sherman the army’s commanding general, and another Civil War luminary, General Phillip Sheridan, assumed command on the ground in the West. “Thus the great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort,” writes Sherman biographer Michael Fellman, “formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by the 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as ‘the final solution of the Indian problem’”.
What Sherman called the “final solution of the Indian problem” involved “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.” “These men,” writes Fellman, “applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three [men] despised. . . . Sherman’s overall policy was never accommodation and compromise, but vigorous war against the Indians,” whom he regarded as “a less-than-human and savage race”
What a hero
>B-but they was oppressing the blacks
>Find a better model
Any one that isn't morally bankrupt.
>Also who in the world doesn't have blood on their hands?
What exactly are you trying to say? There's a big difference between rulers having blood on their hands, and building their whole ideology on racialism.
Stalin died in 1953.
The Soviet Union existed until 1991.
George Orwell had no direct experience with either of the totalitarian systems he criticized.
To say that Khrushchev and Brezhnev periods were Dude Literally 1984 Man is so historically ignorant that you might as well be believe the bait earlier in this thread about the heroic United States.
>George Orwell had no direct experience with either of the totalitarian systems he criticized.
He had some experience of Stalinist in the Spanish Civil War, when the party he was fighting with was identified as Trotskyists (which they weren't), and were put on a shitlist, many being executed or imprisoned. Orwell himself had to flee the country, only making it out because he got to the frontier before the list with his name did.
>Any one that isn't morally bankrupt.
So none, got it
>What exactly are you trying to say?
> There's a big difference between rulers having blood on their hands, and building their whole ideology on racialism
Are you an idiot? Just about every culture did just that
There was a reason the Natives help the Spanish conquistadors fight the Aztec