The Difference

I can see where objectivism can be confused with relativism because they both differ from absolutism in that they don't blindly follow some authority figure who claims to have a monopoly on the truth. The difference is that the relativist believes that the truth is subjective, while the objectivist believes that the truth is objective. Objectivists don't know for a certainty that their perception of the truth is accurate, yet they believe that the truth is out there somewhere, and it's our job to find it. To accomplish this, it may be necessary to change our opinions from time to time as new evidence is brought to light. Objectivists may differ with other objectivists about what is good and what is bad, but they both agree that good and bad are real things. I don't think the relativists do that, they believe that good and bad are whatever somebody thinks they are, and that the reason one person might differ with another person about it is that good and bad don't have an intrinsic existence of their own, they just exist in people's minds.

I will concede that all the people in the world aren't either good guys or bad guys, a lot of them are neutral guys. Most neutral guys aren't really neutral, they usually lean one way or another, but they are closer to neutral than they are to either good or bad. Most good guys probably have some bad in them, and most bad guys probably have some good in them, but they are closer to being good or bad then they are to being neutral. In a conflict, you can chose to support the good guys or the bad guys, or you can be neutral and stay out of it. One time when it may be appropriate to do that would be when you can't figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Another time would be when you know who the good guys are, but you don't have the resources to help them without depriving some better good guys of your support. That's called "choosing your battles". Maybe you can't do the good guys any good, but you certainly don't need to do them any harm.

The Indians and the White people have been dealing with each other for over five centuries. I find it hard to believe that, over that time period, all the Indians were good guys, all the Whites were bad guys, or vice versa. The first Spanish invaders conquered and enslaved the Indians, but later arrivals built mission churches and tried to help them. The French mostly got along with the Indians, except for the Iroquois who were allied with the English against the French. After the English won the war, some of our local boys, under the leadership of Chief Pontiac, launched a rebellion against the English because they were still loyal to the French. I suppose the French would call Pontiac a good guy while the English would call him a bad guy.

The relationship of the Americans with the Indians has had its ups and downs. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a travesty and a disgrace, while the Indian Reorganization Act of 1932 tried to undo some of the damage that was done a century previous. How could the White Man reverse course like that? Because there is more than one White Man, that's why. The guys who passed the 1830 law were long gone when the 1932 law was passed by totally different people. Nowadays, some Indians are doing better than others because they live in different places under different circumstances. I remember seeing a cartoon a long time ago. There was an Indian and a guy dressed like a Thanksgiving pilgrim sitting at the negotiating table. Another guy was whispering in the pilgrim's ear, "Give them a few beads and trinkets and we will get all their land." Meanwhile, another Indian was whispering in the Indian's ear, "Give them casinos and we will get it all back."