Let's talk moral relativism...

I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately, especially since watching a documentary about the Nuremberg Trials in '45 and the recent headlines detailing Radovan Karadzic's trial for crimes against humanity.

The important part of this is that it is a DISCUSSION... I pass no judgement either way. I have a fundamental revulsion of moral relativism, in any form, and I want to see if I am mistaken in thinking that it is often employed by America as a society.

Within this very Bund, and even in its current blog form, we can scroll back and find posts concerning such issues such as how modern Americans view things like the "hammer and sickle" symbol of the former USSR, or images of Che emblazoned on childern's t-shirts and backpacks. Things like the swastika of Nazi Germany, the white robes of the KKK, the burning cross, gross stereotypical images degrading specific races or ethnic groups... all are recognized now as "wrong". I conceded the argument that the CCCP and hammer-and-sickle images carried the same stigma that the previously mentioned ones did, because of the tyranny they represent.

Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have condemned the alleged actions of former Serbian leader Karadzic and his policy of ethnic cleansing during the early '90s after the collapse of the Yugoslavian states. The UN and it's ICTY have drawn up indictments for both personal responsibility and his responsibility as a commander and political official, which both Administrations have supported... and both have offered a US$5 million reward for his capture and conviction.

Karadzic is accused of:

Five counts of crimes against humanity, specifically: extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts of forcible transfer and-or detention.

Three counts of violations of the laws of war, specifically: murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages for use as human shields.

One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, specifically: willful killing of civilians by uniformed officers/soldiers without justification.

Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity, specifically: forced removal of up to 17,000 Muslim and ethnic Croatian innocents without cause or justification.

I wouldn't for a moment deny that these are serious charges, and that the man/men responsible should be brought to justice. My question is this:

If you took all those charges and compared them to the actions of past Americans like former President Andrew Jackson, who signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that forced 46,000 Indians and free blacks from their homes and caused an estimated 11,900 deaths over the next 7 years, can't you make the argument that Jackson was as culpible as Karadzic?

Of course, Karadzic is alive and able to answer the charges... Jackson isn't. I understand this completely. However, if the culpibility is there even though justice can't be served, should he have an honored place in the American lexicon of Presidents and adorne our $20 bill? Should his name grace universities, cities and capitols across the nation? Do the "good things" he did as President outweigh the "bad things"?

Honestly, I'm curious as to what you guys think...