[zzzpaz]

It's not necessary to drag USA, but it's just an example of how stupid these arguments are. Historical facts needs to be analysed with the lens of what was considered normal at that time not with the lens on what we consider to be normal today. As many slaves were used also to build the pyramids for example or to some extend modern slavery is a thing in some countries (look at how Qatar is handling the construction of the stadiums for the 2022 fifa world cup). Why aren't we offended by what happen today as we've the right sensibility to understand this things?

If that was not a great similitude is this a good one instead:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_of_U.S._Marines_urinat...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasio...

This are pretty much modern and new example, instead of paying so much attention to what happened 2000 years ago you should consider to fight in order to avoid this things to happen again. Instead of doing some empty consideration on pretty old facts.

[DrSiemer]

Most of the people here will be aware of all the examples you link to, and are generally appalled by them. But the fact that the world is still not perfect does not somehow prevent us from looking at the past through the lens of today's moral standards.

Can you at least admit that we, as a species, have grown, because we no longer employ grand scale death pits?

Someone can be offended by both historical atrocities AND the Qatar situation. The first we cannot change, the second we can still have some influence on. I would argue this is something we do more because something like the colosseum exists to remind us, not less.

[ggsp]

Honest question—what is the purpose of being offended at something that happened during e.g. Roman times?

[beachy]

If not Roman times, then how about Nazi times, now approaching a century ago? Where do you draw the line?

[zzzpaz]

You draw the line the same way history draws it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods

We're in the contemporary era and things that happened in the Nazi time are still relevant. While things that happened in the ancient era are, by definition, ancient.

So if you want speak about history a good start is to try to study it first.

Otherwise next time we're discussing on how aggressive were people in the Neolithic and how stupid were the law in the Code of Hammurabi

[DrSiemer]

In the context of discussing the value of the colosseum I used the wrong word here.

The simple remark that started this was just someone expressing wonder over how many people must have died there, purely for the entertainment of the masses.

The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace.

Surely there is some better word that covers both the amazement about countless colosseum deaths and feeling resentment towards modern day atrocities, but I can't think of one. The fact that these things are not really connected is actually the point I am trying to make.

[zzzpaz]

> The point that zzzpaz appears to make is that we should be ambiguous to anything that happened in the past, because at the time those things were commonplace.

Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned.

If you want speak about history you need to consider the era that we are referring to. So yes, in the ancient time these things were commonplace (Romans, Greeks, Egyptian and Babylonian), in the contemporary era these are not.

You can't use modern time logic to fight against ancient times. Otherwise next time we can spend the afternoon to speak about the code of Hammurabi and how stupid these laws were.

A good start is to learn about the historic periods and understand how to put things into perspective before being offended by random fact far away

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods

[DrSiemer]

> Please don't put word in my mouth as I never said what you just mentioned.

I didn't, I specifically wrote "appears to" to prevent doing that.

But where do you get this idea from that nobody is allowed to have any kind of opinion on past events, when that opinion is colored by modern day standards? This is not an objective historical essay we are writing here, it's just random comments on the internet.

Nobody is "fighting" anything, the Romans are long gone. Also, nobody is "offended" by what they did. As I admitted in another reply, that was not the correct word to use.

It is a bit confusing to me what the point is that you are trying to make, if it is not what I assumed it was.

[zzzpaz]

I just said it multiple times just go and look at my replies.

Is not required to have an opinion on past events based on nowadays standards. Historian do that all the time, they look at the history with objectiveness especially when is far away to avoid to get trigger by random deaths that happen all the time (even nowadays).

So if you want understand the history the worst thing to do is to cry because someone died. You need to understand events and why these things happened and then maybe you can learn something.

I don't think is complicated to understand, but apparently seems to be the case.

If nobody is offended then why are we here discussing about how many people have died in the colosseum? Just enjoy the fact that now you can see more as compared as what we were able to see before.

Maybe you never been there, so just pay a visit and see the magnificence of it. After all, is still around after 2000 years and pretty well conserved.

[ALittleLight]

I think you "ambivalent" rather than "ambiguous".

I agree that there is no reason to judge the past with their "moral lens". Of course the people in ancient Rome (in total) thought it was okay to kill people in the Coliseum - they were the ones doing it and watching it.

[DrSiemer]

Ah, yes, thank you, I was a bit unsure about that word!