Applying contemporary moral standards to historical figures?

Post Reply New Topic

(Presentism)......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism ... l_analysis)

Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.

--------------------

How recently would presentism apply when it comes to evaluating historical figures, and holding them accountable to such contemporary 21st century values, morals and standards within the modern consensus?

What would be the cutoff mark to where chronologically-borderline individuals like Adolph Hitler would just be regarded as "a product of their age?" Not that Hitler was justified or anything, but his anti-semitism/hyper-nationalist leanings were far more "within bounds" of the political and social culture of his time.

17th and 18th century white slave traders, as well as pro-colonial politicians in the French Third Republic have been cited recently as being "racist." The whole idea of racism as something to eschew did not even become any kind of standard in Western countries until the 1950's or so. The first recognizable definition of 'racism' did not even appear until the 1920s in the USSR. All of that nationalist jingoism found in the imperial-Victorian era anyway was extremely common and accepted in France circa the 1890's or so, even in school textbooks and whatnot, where topics like "the glory of France" were expounded upon.

As far as the slave traders go, they lived in such a different world(say 1750's England) where slavery and certainly all forms of segregation and discrimination were well within their consensus.

How recently though would some historical figue in the 20th century though have had to have been at his peak to start holding the equal-rights, women's rights, etc, ethoses up against him and evaluate him with present standards?

You have raised a good point.

150 years ago people thought nothing of attending public hangings or of someone being given fifty lashes with a cat of nine tails.

Do you remember the movie "Back to the Future"? It jumped from 1955 to 1985.
Well, 1985 is close enough to "our world" so it seems normal but 1955 seems like something from another planet.

When I watch really old movies made in the 1940's I can't relate to the characters. The way they speak and dress and their motivations are so different to today.

Even in Victorian times "masters" felt that they had the right to flog their servants or get the maid pregnant and then throw her out into the street.

You mentioned 1940's film. The thing to remember is film has long been dominated by liberal thinking, and a lot of what you see as an idealized demur woman archetype, especially in the ingenue archetype, comes off as being a feminist statement. Maybe it's just me, but I really notice this in film when the ingenue asks pointed questions and the reaction of male characters is more like "how dare she have a brain!" The femme fatale is another more overtly feminist statement, in my opinion. You have those situations where she's going to the electric chair and the detective sees her and says, "Why'd you do it?" It's the whole setup where she could either die by her man or die by "the man," and by the latter she might have half a chance.

And then there's "Gone With the Wind." I mean, it's RIDDLED with feminist themes. You have the spoiled rich girl trying to dominate the Yankee, being a real belligerent b!+h when Rhett picks her up, hauls her up the stairs, RAPES her, and the very next scene has her singing. Are we supposed to nod approvingly that the white chick had it coming all along? Of course not. We're supposed to be shocked. But it's that scene the next morning when she's happy about it that we really see how far down women have been beaten--to be subjected to rape and HAPPY about it, as though it was some kind of honor to be violated as long as the violation comes from the idealized, honorable man. The irony is that Rhett Butler is anything but honorable! Scarlett can't help it if she's been made a whore. She's only a whore because the culture of her times and the men in her life have MADE her that way, not through any real choice of her own. And at the end you see her shaking her fist at the broken world around her. The male-dominated world around her has disintegrated and destroyed itself, and she returns victorious as the last human being standing--and she happens to be a woman, and this scene indicates she'll never NEED a man again.

Even more revealing is that when my mom was in high school (in the 50's) the Margaret Mitchell novel was required reading. My mom still has her copy. Feminism has stronger, deeper, and more effective roots than the civil rights movement, and it's plain that elements of radical feminism were in place during this more conservative time. Not really much has changed in principle. Liberal viewpoints are predominant in mass media as well as the academic world, and it's consistently been a 1-2 punch for spreading those ideas, even within a more conservative mindset. Feminism is only ONE example.

This is an interesting and important question. I'm surprised at you, Hanotaux.

It is difficult to determine when the appropriate "cut-off" point would be, or exactly when you begin to introduce anachronisms by judging historical characters by modern standards. It largely has to go on a case-by-case basis. Hitler's actions were certainly reprehensible by the standards of his time, and probably by the standards of almost any time. There was a segment of society that recognized slavery as morally reprehensible in the 17th and 18th centuries, though I think most of them still likely held to some notions of superiority and inferiority. There was definitely a vocal anti-slavery movement in 18th-century England.

How does Julius Caesar, with his war against the Celts, or Gauls, fit into a modern paradigm of judgmental-ism against Imperialism©?

It think Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel does a good job of explaining the hows and the whys of which cultures became dominant without applying any moral judgment to the question, it's probably the most neutral description of the conquest of the New World that I've read. It also has some fascinating perspectives on how political/ethnic uniformity stifled innovation in ancient China (no competition means no need to innovate) setting them up for latter attack and subjugation, despite an earlier history of invention. It's a good book regardless, but it's particularly noteworthy for it's non-judgmental tone regarding who conquered whom and why.

^ Though its not really related, the book "1421," that speculates on the Chinese discovery of America, covers the topic very well of how political uniformity stunted growth and progress in empires like China.

I agree GGS is very neutral as well, refreshingly.

Also, I suggest reading Paul Kennedy's "the rise and fall of the great powers." This is a good objective explanation of why late-medieval empires with a great resource base like the Ottoman and Mogul Empires did not in the end come to dominate Europe or the World.

I know Rothbard is regarded as a fringe thinker. I'm curious as to why you would care about my reaction to him.

Anyways, my library has these books of Rothbard's:
America's Great Depression
For A New Liberty : The Libertarian Manifesto
The Great Depression And New Deal Monetary Policy
The Panic Of 1819: Reactions And Policies.
Power & Market; Government And The Economy

And a crapload of articles by him. Basically any journal article or newspaper editorial he's written should be accessible. I don't have much particular interest in any of his writings, but if you recommend something I might read (or at least skim) it.