eli5: what do people mean when they say we should not judge historical figures by modern standards?
In: 0
Imagine you’re playing a game with your friends, and the rules of the game change over time. When your parents were young, they might have played a different version of the game with different rules than you do now. Just like games change, the way people think and behave also changes over time.
In the past, people had different beliefs, ideas, and ways of doing things. They didn’t always know what we know now or understand things the same way we do. So when we look at historical figures, we have to remember that they lived in different times with different rules and beliefs.
It’s important to remember that what was considered right or wrong, fair or unfair, in the past may not be the same as what we believe today. Judging historical figures by our modern standards means we’re looking at them using the rules and ideas we have now, and that might not be fair to them.
Instead, we should try to understand them by learning about the time they lived in, their beliefs, and the challenges they faced. We can learn from their mistakes and celebrate their accomplishments, but we should do it while keeping in mind the differences between their time and ours.
We shouldn’t judge historical figures for being racist, sexist, etc, when it was the norm back then. To use a modern view of bigotry and to say something like “Thomas Jefferson was racist because he said x and did y!” Is to ignore the context of which they lived where behavior like that was normal.
When people say that, they mean that we should not use modern standards to judge historical figures.
It means exactly what it says, there really isn’t any hidden meaning that is so abstract to understand from that sentence.
It’s like when I say “my cat has really long fur/hair”. It means just that. If you are then going to ponder about the exact lengths of what is defined as long, or what a cat is and isn’t then you have a tendency to over think things.
Well imagine if you were judged today by their historical standards. You wouldn’t hold up so well either in their age.
Imagine if you do something normal now but in 100 years people find it offensive or not aligned with their value, are you wrong for doing or being that kind of person?
When we talk about a historical figure, especially one who lived hundreds of years ago, being “good” or “bad,” we need to keep in mind that they lived in a society that may have had very different conceptions of what right and wrong were.
Take, for example, Abraham Lincoln. He felt that racial equality and harmony between white and black people could never be achieved, and he felt that the best solution should probably be to send the freed slaves back to Africa. Nowadays, “Black people can never be real Americans, they should go back to where they came from” is unequivocally seen as a racist opinion. However, Lincoln was also very progressive for his time—he was a staunch abolitionist, despaired at the horrible conditions black slaves lived in, and was noted for treating black people far more respectfully than many of his peers. By the standards of his time, he was incredibly forward-thinking.
It would be easy to write about Lincoln’s racial beliefs and paint him as a white supremacist who was little better than the Confederates he fought. This is what’s often referred to as “presentism”—the idea that people back then behaved and believed the same we do today. And that is a fundamentally inaccurate reading of history. Should we base our actions today based on what we speculate future moral standards may be 400 years from now? If we don’t, why should we expect that of the people of the past?
Just go back one generation and it makes sense. Imagine doing half the stuff your parents did, like smoking around babies, or drinking while pregnant.
Society gets new rules all the time, people live in those expectations.
There is the uncritical and superficial judgement. Typically, this is made with a “feel good” motive. “Look. I am so much smarter and better than XYZ”. Or “they were so wrong and immoral and/or dumb to do ABC”.
The more serious and analytical judgement, puts actions and ideas into context. It frames the situation within the norms of the time. Why didn’t doctors wash their hands before operating on patients 200 years ago? They weren’t immoral or unethical – they simply did not have knowledge of germs.
So it really depends on the goal. A feel good, “I am superior” or a desire to understand and learn from historical events and people.
They mean “I want history to be simple like a Saturday morning cartoon because nuance scares me. Moreover I need history to be broken down into “good guys and bad guys” or else I’m gonna be upset.”
If something was standard in an ancient time, people doing it were just normal people and weren’t bad or evil. Someone with your exact genes would have most likely done the same.
For example, people who owned slaves in ancient times were just regular people.
Latest Answers