>"being on the right side of history"

>>3122964
>implying we don't look at the racists of the 1960's with disgust
>implying we don't look at MLK as a Christ figure
>implying these aren't appropriate views
>implying many if the Civil rights issues we are still dealing with will see clear cut and simple in 20 years

>implying implications

>>3122978
>projecting the modern moral values of today on the past
>not seeking a non-partisan and objective view of history
>Implying Antfia/BLM/RadFems are doing anything but tilting at windmills

>>>/Leftypol/

>>3122978
>we

I bet you're one of those fags that goes around complaining about /pol/ in literally every thread even when it's completely unwarranted. It's incredibly obvious what you and your comrades try to do here, even to people that don't give a fuck about /pol/ you're ridiculously easy to spot.

>>3123066
>ignoring the moral wrongdoings of the past because the like the way they btfo niggers
>implying there are any partisan differences of opinion about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and it isn't objectivly a good thing
>implying the salience of social change entirely rests upon the accomplishments of radicals
You realize things like the Black Panthers and Radical Feminists have existed for half a century right?

>>>/pol/

>>3123122
I'm a registered Republican you fucking mongrel.
I used "we" as a shorthand for the American public

Why do Socialists and Communists like >>3122978 hate White people? Are they all racist against White people? Why????

>>3123138
You come across as the kind of person who uses the terms "white genocide" and "race realist"

>>3123152
That's cause I took the redpill, cuck. Now why do you hate White people?

>>3123152
>falling for the bait

>>3122978
not on /pol/ and /pol/-lite

Though at the same time those leaders that you just know fucked over their country (Hitler, Commodious, Rodrigo Borgia for the papacy, Louis XIV, etc.) never tend to be looked in hindsight with "these guys were the best!" (except maybe Hitler)

Screw over your country and people and no one will think you are a good leader.
Make your country and people's lives better and they will.

It's not that hard. Saying "you can't put historical figures in a moral standard" is bullshit because they themselves do that, and usually use it to justify their actions.

>>3123333
the phrase "on the right side of history" is so ambiguous that it isn't even clear that it is in reference to morality

>>3123339
"Right side of history" means since your actions and words are similar to the people in history that are hated, got their ass-kicked, and made the country worse, you are probably going to share their fate.

>>3123351
that is how you understand it, and I see no indication that it is the common interpretation of the phrase

>>3123358
Kinda covers all the definitions. Remember that the usually justification for learning history is "so that we don't repeat it," so naturally they're indicating that you are going to become a cautionary tale.

Is no one gonna point out that "being on the right side of history" has nothing to do with morality and everything with what the general consensus is?

Who was it again who said that an opinion held by the majority doesn't equate to justice?

Also why were there things being pointed out about issues 20+ years after the war? Who knows how for instance race relations in America would've changed if the axis won, let alone the middle east.

>>3123440
It's based on the outcome of the event mostly. A majority can easily be on the wrong side.