Rewriting History

[Illuminattile]

I was reading an article about a German doctor named Hans Reiter who identified a painful form of arthritis in 1916. The condition was named "Reiter's Syndrome", but you're much more likely to find it referred to as "reactive arthritis" in modern journals and papers. Why?

Because years later Reiter became a devout Nazi and was involved in the program of enforced sterilisation and euthanasia for 'undesirables'. In 1977 a campaign was started to rename the condition so as to avoid the connection with a Nazi. As they say, history is written by the winners.

Is this acceptable? I'm not talking about this specific case, but in general. There are plenty of historical figures who receive praise for their accomplishment, but who also engaged in unsavoury acts. George Washington was a slave owner, regardless of how humane he was. So was Thomas Jefferson. Earlier this year a group of parents campaigned to have Thomas Jefferson Elementary School in Berkeley renamed because it might offend African-American students.

Does anyone agree with this kind of thing? Should people, however evil, be given the praise they deserve?

Let's put it this way, if Adolf Hitler, before coming to power, had discovered a Cure for Cancer would you be happy to go to Adolf Hitler Elementary School?

 

[PuffnScruff]

i think that if hitler did find the cure for cancer we should give him credit for it but still teach and not forget how much of a crazy homo he was. if he had not done crimes against the human race then it would be fine to name a school after him. but since he did or would end up doing, those crimes would out weight his accomplishments imo.

when it comes to the presidents being slave owners i'm a little bit more undecided. on one hand it is wrong to own a person. on the other we dont know how they treated their slaves. did their slaves live in the house or outside? were they fair to them or unfair? treat them like human beings or like dogs?

other thing you have to think about is being a slave owner was a common thing back then.

hard to say

i could understand why they would want to change the name to "reactive arthritis". but people should still be taught who it was discovered by and why it was changed.

 

[Sebastian]

i think that if hitler did find the cure for cancer we should give him credit for it but still teach and not forget how much of a crazy homo he was. if he had not done crimes against the human race then it would be fine to name a school after him. but since he did or would end up doing, those crimes would outweight his accomplishments imo.

i agree with you on this one, puff.

 

[Illuminattile]

when it comes to the presidents being slave owners i'm a little bit more undecided. on one hand it is wrong to own a person. on the other we dont know how they treated their slaves. did their slaves live in the house or outside? were they fair to them or unfair? treat them like human beings or like dogs?

Washington was a "humane" slave owner, but a slave owner nonetheless. Does it matter how well you treat someone you're forcing to work for you? I someone who kills people "gently" less of a murderer than someone who takes a chainsaw to his or her victims?

other thing you have to think about is being a slave owner was a common thing back then.

It was also common to be a Nazi in Nazi Germany.

 

[MATW95]

I don't believe the disease should be named after him, for they've already got another name for it, but he should still be recognized as the founder of the condition .

 

[S O F I]

I was reading an article about a German doctor named Hans Reiter who identified a painful form of arthritis in 1916. The condition was named "Reiter's Syndrome", but you're much more likely to find it referred to as "reactive arthritis" in modern journals and papers. Why?

Because years later Reiter became a devout Nazi and was involved in the program of enforced sterilisation and euthanasia for 'undesirables'. In 1977 a campaign was started to rename the condition so as to avoid the connection with a Nazi. As they say, history is written by the winners.

Is this acceptable? I'm not talking about this specific case, but in general. There are plenty of historical figures who receive praise for their accomplishment, but who also engaged in unsavoury acts. George Washington was a slave owner, regardless of how humane he was. So was Thomas Jefferson. Earlier this year a group of parents campaigned to have Thomas Jefferson Elementary School in Berkeley renamed because it might offend African-American students.

Does anyone agree with this kind of thing? Should people, however evil, be given the praise they deserve?

Let's put it this way, if Adolf Hitler, before coming to power, had discovered a Cure for Cancer would you be happy to go to Adolf Hitler Elementary School?

Hitler is seen as a negative figure in society while Thomas Jefferson, for example, is not. It has to do with what's accepted in the society.

Naming a school after Thomas Jefferson promotes his good deeds and he's seen as a good person. Naming a school after Hitler even though he invented cure for cancer, to continue the example, would still promote his negative ideals. Fair? No. More or less neccesary? Yes.

Winners write history books and losers write memoirs and short stories. As long as you as an individual can get a sense of both sides, that's all that matters.

I know I was taught in school that when reading a history book, you have to take it with a grain of salt because it's from one specific point of view. So, that's important, I believe.

 

[S O F I]

I don't believe the disease should be named after him, for they've already got another name for it, but he should still be recognized as the founder of the condition .

Well, the problem is that the disease was renamed. The original name wasn't "arthritis". Judging from illum's post, he is indeed recognized as the founder of the condition.

 

[PuffnScruff]

Washington was a "humane" slave owner, but a slave owner nonetheless. Does it matter how well you treat someone you're forcing to work for you? I someone who kills people "gently" less of a murderer than someone who takes a chainsaw to his or her victims?


It was also common to be a Nazi in Nazi Germany.

this is why it's hard for me to make an opinion on this. on one hand they may have been a, like you said, a "humane" slave owner but still a slave owner. its hard to say for me.

the balance beam is even for me.