true nobility is what you do with what you're given in life. in this
sense, a slave master can be noble if he was born into such position
but tries to be a fair/just slave master or end slavery because it's
seen as a moral wrong. and someone born into slavery can be ignoble if
he abuses power within his (limited)sphere of influence or refuses the
learn the moral lessons of slavery upon liberation.
we have no control over how we are born. but, we can control our
lives and make our own choices within our sphere of our influence/
power. so, even as certain principles of nobility remain constant,
their worth among individuals can only be determined by human choice/
actions within social contexts. so, deng, as an autocrat, is not
noble by american democratic standards. but, given his background and
situation, he did the noble thing in turning china away from maoism to
pluralism. same can be said of gorbachev. both deng and gorby can only
be judged by what they did within the context of their sphere of
influence. similarly, though khrushchev was no democrat, it took real
courage for him to confront and expose some of evil of stalinism.
this is why some conservatives who only condemn gorbachev as a
communist fail to understand how far he came from his starting point.
'the given' in his life was communist monopoly on everything and
little tolerance for dissent. the fact that he took measures to open
up russia and try something boldly new against bureaucratic orthodoxy
should earn him great respect.

similarly, we must judge past americans by what they did within the
context of 'the given'. no man has control over what he's born into
into or how he's raised. he can only be judged by what does within
the confines of his limited freedom and power. no man is totally
powerful, and no man is totally powerless. even a relatively powerless
person can beat up his wife and children, kick dogs, torture animals,
and be brutal to his peers or those even less fortunate than he. even
a man born into great power and privilge--built upon oppression of
many people--can try to be a good man. he may maintain the existing
order but try to rule fairly or he may seek to change the order to
something more just. the reason why kim jong il is such a lowlife
scum is he ONLY cares about his own power. the reason why deng and
gorbachev were, within their national contexts, somewhat noble men is
because they chose to make their societies freer and more just.
this is why attacking the Founding Fathers for being slave owners is
stupid. many were born into slave-owning families, something they had
no control over. and same can be said of many other white
slaveowners. but, many white slaveowners tried to be good--by the
standards of those times--slave-owners(and indeed they were by world
standards); also, the founding fathers conceived of and established a
system that would gradually expand the idea of freedom and liberty for
everyone and end slavery. consider that ALL the slaveowners in the
non-western world didn't even see slavery as evil, and even if they
did, didn't try to abolish it in their own lands.

no one is automatically noble because he's born into disadvantage;
indeed, he's ignoble if, within his sphere of power, he's brutal,
mean, and oppressive. consider the countless poor and repressed people
in china who beat up dogs with glee and sadism. they are cruel
oppressors within their own limited realm. but, even a nazi can be
noble as we saw in the movie 'schindler's list'. as a nazi,
schindler didn't have to do what he did, but he chose to do so even
though he was part of the oppressive order. with 'the given', he
tried to do the right thing.

we must move away from the concept of collective nobility to that of
contextual nobility. nobility is not about matters beyond our
control but what we do within our control. a son of a slavemaster had
no control over being born as such. but, as a slavemaster he can try
to decent to his subjects or even try to free them. similarly, some
kings are good and noble given the reality they were born into. even
if we regard the monarchy as fundamentally unjust and repressive, not
all kings are alike. some kings have tried to be good monarchs while
others ONLY cared about power and self-glorification. also, it's a
fact that even the powerful cannot do everything his way.
suppose deng had wanted to turn china into a true liberal democracy on
the western model. that simply would not have been possible because
(1) he didn't have absolute power and there would have been too much
resistance inside the government, leading to his removal and (2) china
simply might not have been ready to function under a fully democratic
order back in the late 70s--or even now. if it's understandable why
china is moving gradually toward greater freedom, why are so harsh on
the US for not having turned into a perfect democracy overnight in its
history? leftists and liberals during the Cold War insisted that
even though USSR is not a democracy and is indeed repressive and even
murderous, we should try to be understanding and sympathetic due to
the special 'givens' of russian history, conditions, etc. so, even
if there were no human rights, no free elections, no private property,
etc, we should not be quick to judge. we should make peace and
gradually help russians to move toward greater freedom and justice.
but, these are the same people who bitch and whine about how US didn't
become a perfect democracy overnight and practiced slavery at one
time. they were willing to forgive USSR's state slavery that killed
over 20 million people and let bygones be bygones and embrace
communist russians as friends, BUT they express shock, horror, and
dismay at the fact that america Gradually moved towards a more perfect
union and democracy.

genuine noble actions come from heart and knowledge gained from
education and experience--and balls, as courage is necessary. also,
there must enough elements in society receptive to an improved moral
order for nobility to have any great impact. gorbachev and deng were
able to reform because there was a mood for change in their nations
despite all the anxiety. but, even noble people in north korea or
burma can't do much because dissent will surely lead to death.

blacks oftentimes complain of white folks in the old days, but white
folks of the past must be judged by what they did in the context of
their times. and blacks must also be judged within their own context.
no one is totally powerless and no one is totally powerful. there are
zones or spheres of power. even a poor person can torture or kick a
dog. even a slave can, in his sphere, act like a tyrant whereas a
slave master can try to be a good overlord. in this sense, a good
slavemaster can be said to be nobler than a nasty slave. also, we
must remember that social positions are not forever. lords fall and
slaves rise to power. when slaves take over as masters, they can be
evil and vicious. just look at much of africa. just look at mugabe.
they were the former oppressed but with power in their hands they are
far ignobler than white imperialists of the past.
and, look at blacks in the inner city who like to bully people--
especially non-blacks--, force dogs to fight, and cause all sorts of
destruction. liberals want us to see all blacks as noble in their
misguided concept of collective nobility. but, the fact is a nasty
sumfabitch is a nasty sumfabitch, whether he's rich or poor,
relatively powerful or powerless, white or black. notice that some of
the nicest nations in the world are rich nations while some of the
meanest are poor nations. leaders of poor nations may play the
'victim' and play on the guilt of rich nations--'white folks greed
ruling a world in need'--but most poor nations are poor because they
are full of ignoble people from top to bottom. the sad fact is many
zimbabweans supported mugabe all along. they loved it when mugabe
played the anti-white card. having ruined their own country, they want
white nations to bail them out and give them freebies. just as hitler
came to power and ruled with the support of many germans, most african
thugs came to power with the support of african masses. ignobility is
a big part of african and black culture. though blacks do the
wonderful noble negro act with their deep voices and charisma, blacks
are less likely to be noble because of their racial makeup. there are
tons of information on the internet that demonstate how blacks are
temperamentally and emotionally more self-centered and self-obsessed
due to biochemical reasons. we can see it in wright, cornel west, and
barack/michelle obama. obama is so used to white people doing him
favors, schmoozing him, rubbing him with babywipes, and kissing his
ass that he thinks something is wrong or 'racist' when not all whites
do the same. in one of his recent speeches, he said 50 yrs from now,
mankind will realize that HE saved humanity, the planet, and the
universe. it's so typically black. it's due to the wiring in the
brain and the fact that blacks produce more testasterone. it makes
them full of themselves and cocky and shit. this is why obama plays
on white guilt but never mentions that his black ancestors--as his
black ancestry is PURELY african--owned slaves and never did anything
to abolish slavery. moral burden is entirely on whites, the ONLY
people who did so much to end slavery not only in their own country
but around the world. if whites had embraced afro-centric values, they
never would have ended slavery since slavery was never seen as an evil
in africa. and, the ONLY reason why blacks believe that slavery is
wrong is because they've come under the influence of western/white
culture. but, blacks like obama go on and on about 'white folks ruling
a world in need'. the real problem is that the world-in-nee