This isn't a statement, it's a question.


It's true if you want it to be, it's false if you want it to be.
It's not a universal social law noting anything significant.

This is clearly intended to be a statement: "good people see the good in people. Bad people see the bad in people.
With the question mark relating to whether we think that it is true or false.

I definitely agree with the first but the second........
Do bad people see others for starters? They only care about themselves

True sort of, but since it's also true that each can see the opposite as well, not very useful.

The most common problems in life, tend to come as a result of people who think that something that is good (for them, at least) is also "good" in general.

Such as those who see that it is "good" to be wealthy, and deduce that therefore ANYTHING that they do, with any cost, to become wealthy, is therefore "good" as well.

Or people who know it is "good" to enjoy sex, and conclude that when they have sex with ANYONE, regardless of what they promised their mate, that that is "good" as well.

And as a bit of a reverse, people who think that if "good" and "bad" are always relative, and dependent on culture or point of view, that therefore anything at all they do, for whatever reason, can be declared "good."

nice word

or "bad".

The concept of good and bad behavior is purely human.
Humans make comparisons and pass judgement based on their reasoning ability and their passions.

If you ask someone to define ten good traits and ten bad traits they might be able to list them fairly quickly.
Show their list to a stranger in their same society and some might agree, some might not.
However, show those lists to someone from a different part of the world who exists in a different society and culture and they may not agree with anything listed.

This is because the definition of good or bad is judgemental prejudice relative to the observer.

I see genocide as bad but I can also see it as good.

The United States performed an act of genocide on the Native Americans.
Good for the United States, bad for the Native Americans.
I live in a nation founded on genocide.
I love these United States.
Judgemental prejudice relative to the observer.

Then, along comes Hitler.
Hitler tried to do what the United States did.
Most people see Hitler as a monster because he wanted to perform genocide too.
Good for the Nazis bad for the Jews.
Judgemental prejudice relative to the observer.

If you remove either genocide from history, you remove the good that resulted from it.

I see myself as a generally good person.
There was a time in my life I saw myself as a bad person.
Others didn't see me as bad but I did.
Sometimes others did see me as bad.

To become the person I am now, my bad and good had to happen.
Remove one or the other and there's no telling how I would have turned out.
This is because even the bad things I did gave me wisdom.

Removing judgemental prejudice in real-time is very difficult to do.
In hindsight, its easy.

So many people claim they don't judge anyone yet as soon as you label them good or bad or look for good or bad in them you are passing judgement.
Passing judgement keeps us alive and sane.
Not judging others is insane (irrational).

Not true

"If you remove either genocide from history, you remove the good that resulted from it."

Not actually logical.

Mainly because existence overall, is nowhere near so simple.

Basically, the universe is NOT binary in its nature. The fact that one thing occurred, followed by another thing, does NOT mean that the second thing was entirely dependent on the first.

It is NOT true that the United States as it is could not have existed without the attempted genocide of the previous natives.

There is something that is true, that is somewhat related to this reasoning, however. That can be found by shifting one's viewpoint slightly, away from "good versus bad," and over to "calculation of natural or logical consequences, and how desirable those consequences are."

This is the sort of calculation many parents end up making, whether consciously or not, regarding how they try to raise their children. Often parents conclude that doing something unpleasant, even contradictory to their adult philosophy, is what seems necessary to protect and help their children to survive.

And here's the key bit: parents don't always find over time, that the choices they made actually served to bring the results they desired for their children (or for themselves).

Genocide can be a bit like that.

Thanx for a different view.
While it does seem logical that thing happen no matter what, Its been my experience and my logical assumption that things happen from causality.
Action A results in action B which in turn results in action C.
From what I read, of your contribution, action A does not necessarily lead to action C.
Knowing you are a historian, I suspect you might see things and make association I don't.
However, if someone commits genocide and that future leads to a certain outcome, everything that happened at point A must result in point C.

The United States exists because our founders performed genocide.
If that act never happened, Native Americans kept their land and their cultural heritage, the United States as we currently know it would never exist.
If Hitler had succeeded, the world stage as we see it now, would not exits as it is right now.

On a more personal level, if my mate never did that which offended me, I would still be married.
Its fundamental, the cause and effect, of those things which shape our lives.
Act A does lead to Act B then Act C and so on.
Its real-life experience that confirms it.

From a historian point of view, it could be surmised the formation and presence of the United States is inevitable.
However, the exception is in the detail.
If the genocide never happened, yes the US might have formed but it would not be the US we currently experience.
We NEED the genocide to make our reality align with Now.
We NEED Hitler's failed genocide to align with Now.
I need the realization of my marriage failures to align with Now.

Its easy to think Now is inevitable.
The significance is in the patterns of actions which lead to an outcome.
If the outcome is inevitable, why even try?

The hindsight of history seems clear.
Believe me, I looked.
In hindsight, we can apply logical assumption to the events which transpire.
We can justify ourselves by reasoning the result is inevitable.
The real-time experience is not so clear.

The good see the good, but don't have blind trust.

Well said. People are neither good or bad. It how we judge them and judging people is wrong until you know the whole story.

"The United States exists because our founders performed genocide.
If that act never happened, Native Americans kept their land and their cultural heritage, the United States as we currently know it would never exist.
If Hitler had succeeded, the world stage as we see it now, would not exits as it is right now.

On a more personal level, if my mate never did that which offended me, I would still be married.
Its fundamental, the cause and effect, of those things which shape our lives.
Act A does lead to Act B then Act C and so on.
Its real-life experience that confirms it."

Your absolutely right that SOME cause and effect are absolutely linked, it's just that not ALL such things are.

It's absolutely true that the partial genocide of natives here (there was never a serious organized effort to wipe them out, just a vicious effort to prevent them from controlling even their own destinies) played an indelible part in America's past, and it's certainly true that there are consequences to the fact that it did happen that will be with us always as a result.

But it's not necessarily true that the genocide was necessary for everything that America became.

Likening it to my own disastrous relationships, the fact that I made some certain mistakes, is not entirely why I am the person I am today. Only partially so.

This all goes back to the idea that any particularly GOOD things about America, are only good because of the very bad things we did to our native population. That's the only point I'm arguing against.

I see you mention again, a binary way of seeing things. Your note that our only options were genocide, or setting the natives up as our superiors in some fashion. History of many other places and times on this planet, shows there are multiple possible choices between those extremes.

In short, I would myself NOT excuse the mistreatment of native (or other) peoples ANYWHERE, on the grounds that I like something about the state that followed some time later.

Yes, cause and effect partially apply.
There were many good and bad things which made the US the country it is today.
Civil War, famine, stock market crash, mega projects, oil, steel and railroad industries. Highway/interstate network, coal industry, movie industry, electricity industry.
The list of things which made the US now is significant
But...
It all hinges on the Native American sacrifices.
Our founders invaded a strange land and forcibly moved in.
They isolated and broke the people who lived here.
They instituted their values, culture and industry so they could take possession of land which was not theirs.
Without that action, they would have no land to build what we now call home.
Granted, some land was given, some was bought but the majority was taken, by force. To the victor goes the spoils.
Cause and effect.

As for my marriage.
It was a breach of trust which caused the events that ended us.
Cause and effect.

Hitler was just one example.
The Romans were also invaders.
There are many cause and effects.
The older the country the more cause and effect that has influence.

The discussion explores perception based on personal bias.
Do Good people see the Good in others.
Do Bad people see the Bad in others.
This is judgemental prejudice relative to the observer.
Who defines the good or bad in people?
Who defines good?
Who defines bad?
I'm saying all people have the capacity for both good and bad.
I'm also saying good and bad is relative to the observer.

To most people, genocide is bad.
However, to someone who believes in Malthusian theory genocide might be seen as good.
Judgemental prejudice relative to the observer.

True

Modern PC people don't believe in good or bad until someone shyts on their parade.

This statement is false.

In order to have good or bad you must define what good and bad is.

Depending on who you talk to, their religious beliefs, moral code, age, race, nationality,political views, upbringing, wealth,sexual preference, gender, social status,ect... it will be different.

They may agree on some or even most topics but they will never agree on everything.

So the question has no answer. The only right answer is the one you want to hear.

No, it has an answer. It is false. There is no grey area. It is either true or false.

These words were once said to me by someone. He said "Good people see the good in me, bad people see the bad in me."

But it is interesting to discuss it....

goood

So you're saying that if a "good person" saw you burn a child alive that good person would believe you did it for a good reason.

If a "bad person" saw you donate ever cent you own and go on a mission trip to help starving people around the word, that bad person would believe you are doing this for bad reasons.

I totally get it now.

So if a person saw you steal an apple to feed a hungry child, the good person sees you as bad for stealing and the bad person sees you good for stealing... or is it the other way around?