Wha....No...No, maybe.

Unless you have stabbed people to death, in which case go for it.

If you otherwise like those franchises then perhaps consider them “Space Trek” and “Space Wars?”  Or, “The Chronicles of the Federation” and “The Chronicles of Resistance?”  The latter has a nice ring!

Oh I concur...but in the 1780s the bourgeoisie were still a historically progressive class

Remember, without the American Revolution, we don’t have the French Revolution, which means we don’t have the Haitian Revolution, or the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the Americas. 

*Sigh* if we’re going to argue ethics behind historical events (which historians DON’T DO because that isn’t what history is, leave that stuff to philosophers) then let’s take a historical look at your examples.

You’re either missing or deflecting from my point.

EC?

Sort of a tangential rant but one thing I love about reading historical accounts (currently Livy’s the Rise of Rome), listening to podcasts like Mike Duncan’s or Patrick Whyman’s is the ability to gain a frame of reference and perspective on the foundation of America. One of my favorite things that Mike Duncan has…

There are three common narratives when it comes to historical figures:

No, other states managed to remove that vile institution in civilized fashion. Half the country being willing to go to War to maintain slaves is a failure of America’s, not a success.

Lots of stories from Queens residents online who claim to be lifelong registered Dems but were forced to fill out affidavits on election day.

Sorry this list is so broad — in fairness it was a broad question.

And what would you have the DPRK do? Follow Libya's example and leave themselves wide open? They would suffer the same fate in minutes.

Lots of revisionist history on this thread, and projecting today’s morality on the 1760s

That’s not how history works, folks

They also took on the British Empire, and established the first democratic republic in the world.

The world is a dialectical place. 

This is the reason why the founding fathers weren’t just accidentally slave owners or slave owner adjacents, but they were specifically slave owners, and those adjacent to slave owners.

Uh bud I don’t think most of us would deny it

Yeah, wealthy American land owners saw the tide turning in England, they were moving towards abolition.

Your daily reminder, also, that while the 18th century was a long time ago and conceptions of morality were different, they were not so radically different that the immorality of slavery could not have been understood. Opposition to slavery was a perfectly respectable political position to hold. In fact, it was such a…