World News

I think it might have more to do with the fact that our perception of morality changes with societal norms. People in the 19th century probably looked at Roman gay sex as something bad and vulgar because gays were bad. Now we view Roman gay sex in a positive light.

Were the 19th century people bad people because they viewed homosexuality as something bad? Or do we consider them bad just because we no longer see homosexuality as something bad? What if 200 years from now homosexuality is considered bad again, do the 19th century people become good?

Maybe we shouldn't apply our current moral values to people who lived at a different time with different moral values?

Isn't that contingent on a person's parameters for what they consider humane? Good and evil are subjective concepts that will never be objective. Wouldn't you agree the definition for what you are calling humanitarian department is constantly evolving? For example, it was considered humane to designate women as the caretaker and men as the provider but now the idea of taking away a man or women's option for how they want to build their family's framework is inhumane as fuck. Also I'm not implying anything about a family being between a man and women or any gender related shit. I simply mean to include the full range of our species' sexes.

Edit for further context: what i mean is that the fault doesn't always point to historic records omitting truths to fit a narrative. There are plenty of examples of the records being accurate, but societal parameters for what is considered humane or inhumane is what evolved.

Nah, by their standards, he was a colossal piece of crap too. He was very much disliked. He was known to be humorless and just kind of a jerk overall. He was also pretty useless a lot of the time. He was elected to parliament and only spoke one time during his tenure there. He said, "the window needs closing." Really.

And then when he took over the mint, he was just ruthless in prosecuting anyone he could for any reason he could find. He had a witch hunt for counterfeiters after there was a change in coinage. It was pretty nuts. So yeah, he was always a piece of shit. This just makes him a bigger piece of shit.

Newtons part in the slave trade is no less a part of the life and history of Newton then his contributions to science, why would we omit it? Calling him a piece of shit and saying he contributed to an awful system does not alter the fact that modern math and physics are where they are currently due to his contributions. Conversely, his contributions to science doesn't alter the fact he contributed to one of the worst systems in human history.

All of the statues that got wrecked would like a word.

Not when there is so much to be done today.

I see no need to go back over history constantly bringing this shit up.

Bringing what up? The truth?

You might as well say that you don't see a need to even observe history if you take issue with people discussing the verifiable fact that Newton's wealth came from slavery.

If anything, it sounds like you might have a vested interest in downplaying information like this. I would be curious to see where your family's wealth came from.

News at 11: if you'd been born and raised in the 17th century there's a chance you'd have felt the same

Now the weather

People in the past were products of their time, news at 11

He was a rich dude in the 16 to 1700s, his wealth could only come from the suffering of others.

Nobody gains massive wealth without the suffering and exploitation of others, not the 1700s, not in 800BC and not today.

The summary in the body says his scientific legacy remains untarnished, so it has nothing to do with his math.

However, much like America's Founding Fathers, it is important to account for the amount that important European and European-descended people in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (really even the 20th) benefited from the transatlantic slave trade. An accounting of history's wrongs is necessary.