Flirting with the absurd ...

No, this isn't a post on how I met my ex wife.

Titus, you have a misguided definition of moral relativism, at least as it pertains to what I wrote. Are you telling me that there is a code of "MORAL ABSOLUTES" that is impenetrable to time and space? I would argue the definition of "moral absolutes" has changed throughout the ages, evolving into what it is today. Child labor, women's suffrage, the fact that George Washington owned slaves - of course these are all worthy of an accurate historical treatise, they happened. My point isn't to air brush them out, but that it is foolish in my opinion to pluck figures from history, men not evolved into our modern sense of moral absolutes, and put them on trial by that evolved standard and declare them a "war criminal."

I'm not defending the Indian Removal Act, but its' defense isn't what you asked originally, is it? You asked if Jackson should be regarded as much a war criminal as that Eastern European general (whose name escapes me at the moment). And I am saying no. And Dear Lord man, take Jackson off the $20 bill? Shall we take Washington off the $1, & the quarter? Certainly as a slave owner he is evil incarnate. The statues of FDR removed for the internments? The Lincoln memorial removed for his blatant intolerance of liberty during times of crisis? We can go down the list of deconstructing many a revered American figure until there is NO ONE left to admire. And you can't simply stop with removing Jackson from our currency. Intellectual honesty demands you then return the lands to the heirs of those tribes whom fell victim to this crime against humanity. You want as a response to "war crimes" to remove the man from the twenty? That is symbolic horse crap, that gives you some sense of moral karma. As a response to 12,000 deaths simply removing this "war criminal" from the 20 is wantonly insufficient. We must have a post mortem trial. We must remove all statues idolizing him in New Orleans. We must cast his heirs out into the street from their homes! Remove a single image? THAT is no response to a crime against humanity!

Do you see how absurd this is? As a response to what you describe as a "war crime" or crime against humanity, you want his face off the $20. Well that'll show him.

If humanity's code of moral absolutes has not evolved over the years then shouldn't the Slav General face the same fate? If there is but ONE standard throughout time and memorial then why not simply ban the general's image from currency and send him on his way?

Acknowledging the status quo of a time period, and factoring that in to how we view individuals living centuries ago is not moral relativism. Moral relativism would be for the Hague (or wherever this guy is being tried in Europe) to announce they have no moral authority in which to try this man because the monarchs of their past are guilty of actions far beyond the general's. Judging a man in a vacuum, not taking into account the period in which he lived seems to me to be a purposeful distortion of perspective. Hitler = EVIL in our society. So does Stalin, Pol Pot. The size and scope of their crimes, the era in which it occurred being so recent, it all factors into that judgement. Now, is the name Marcus Arileus (sp?), etched in the Western psychic as "evil?" He persecuted Christians with great vigor. So why not? How about Genghis Khan? Is he considered "evil" on a level with Milosevic? No. Why not? Khan slaughtered perhaps 10 times the number of people. Should the nation of France take great pride in Napoleon, or shame? The national symbol of pride for the nation of Egypt is the Pyramids, the Sphinx. Built by a generation of enslaved peoples under a brutal regime. Should they bring in detonation crews and remove this blight? And I assume the pyramid should be off the currency as well.

Look, removing Jackson from the $20 bill IS a reparation, its just a sorry excuse for one is all.

Now I'll be the first to admit that as an American I can never provide full objectivity here. I can not divorce my patriotism from the discussion. However, by your own standard, Woodrow Wilson was a more moral person and admirable Commander-In-Chief then was George Washington. One showed Birth of a Nation in the White House ... the other employed slaves in the White House. Is this where you are prepared to go? Wilson over Washington in your presidential report card? Don't tell me taking in a man's time period and the status quo of his society at the time of his life in order to properly "judge" him is moral relativism, and is thus rejected. What you describe as moral relativism I call historical perspective. Yes, acknowledge and understand the "warts & zits" of our history, so as to guard against them in the future and properly understand our past. But embracing these flaws to the point of removing presidents from our currency because they fail to meet our modern standard of morality is ... well ... there is just no end to whom we will need to tear down to in order to pay that tab.