Should we judge people in history by today's standards ?

Davidth88

Should we judge people who lived maybe 150 years ago ( or earlier , or later ) by today's acceptable standards.

The case that made me think this was within the thread about African-American there were a number of posts about slavery.

Of course we all find the concept of slavery , and the history of it abhorrent , and rightly too.

However who are we to judge people , the trade they were undertaking was legal , and acceptable ( to a lot of people ) at the time ?

The same may be said in the future about tobacco companies ( and Governments ) making huge amounts of money from an addiction that kills, or even going way back human sacrafice when crops failed or whatever ( I am sure some historian is going to tell me that never happened or something )

nyarlothothep

Laws don't necessarily equate to justice. The laws that permitted slavery were not justified.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I agree. In the future I think they'll probably think it abhorrent to keep primates/elephants/big cats etc in zoos.

Slavery, I guess it was th multiple observer effect, no one made a stand because everyone else turned a blind eye.

If I was born into a rich family I'd probably have kept slaves, maybe have rationalised it by deciding I treated them better than others. I believe the vast majority of people alive today would do the same.

994

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Laws don't necessarily equate to justice. The laws that permitted slavery were not justified.

But what about the people who are forced to work 80-hour weeks for terrible pay to build consumer products for us wealthy westerners? The future will judge us very harshly for that.

nyarlothothep

994 wrote: »

But what about the people who are forced to work 80-hour weeks for terrible pay to build consumer products for us wealthy westerners? The future will judge us very harshly for that.

Rightly so.

994

994 wrote: »

But what about the people who are forced to work 80-hour weeks for terrible pay to build consumer products for us wealthy westerners? The future will judge us very harshly for that.

I doubt the future will care all that much.... They'll be too concerned with living their lives, and coping with whatever stresses they'll have at that time.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Laws don't necessarily equate to justice. The laws that permitted slavery were not justified.

Justified by whom? Many nations justified their usage of slaves while they were using them. Even when slavery became unfashionable they just changed the name and called them "indentured servants". Most of the major nations at one time or another permitted some form of slavery. It has only been through social change with the perception of what humanity actually was, to change the system.

The first country that people think of is usually the US, when considering slavery. But it has been an industry in all countries going back to the dawn of civilization.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

Justified by whom? Many nations justified their usage of slaves while they were using them. Even when slavery became unfashionable they just changed the name and called them "indentured servants". Most of the major nations at one time or another permitted some form of slavery. It has only been through social change with the perception of what humanity actually was, to change the system.

The first country that people think of is usually the US, when considering slavery. But it has been an industry in all countries going back to the dawn of civilization.

well all they had to consider was whether they would like to be a slave, whether they would find it a dignified and meaningful position and whether there was any objective justification for that position beyond personal greed and irrationality.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt the future will care all that much.... They'll be too concerned with living their lives, and coping with whatever stresses they'll have at that time.

We're most definitely concerned about history, ones past affects ones present, an individual/society/species cannot know where it is going unless it knows where it has been. The history channel, historical documentaries, history being invoked in international disputes/diplomacy, knowledge of our past is an advantage. The future hopefully will be no different.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

well all they had to consider was whether they would like to be a slave, whether they would find it a dignified and meaningful position and whether there was any objective justification for that position beyond personal greed and irrationality.

Slavery has only really been abolished in the last 100 years. That's a really short time compared to the amount of time that Slavery was allowed and flourished. And even then, while there are legal considerations which prevent actual slavery, there are other more subtle forms of bondage which exist outside of the law, and are pretty much ignored.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

We're most definitely concerned about history, ones past affects ones present, an individual/society/species cannot know where it is going unless it knows where it has been. The history channel, historical documentaries, history being invoked in international disputes/diplomacy, knowledge of our past is an advantage. The future hopefully will be no different.

Hmm... I know what you mean but humanity seems doomed to commit the same actions over and over even though we're aware of the consequences. take genocide for example. The Jewish Holocaust being the most famous, and most remembered worldwide. We remember our history of Europe and the millions of Jews and other "undesirables" who were murdered by the Third Reich, and yet there have been a number of major Genocides since then. Even inside of Europe we've seen the intentional desire and drive to destroy another culture completely.

History is a useful tool for us to remember what has happened, but Its only a hint for us to use. We need to do more with it to prevent it from happening again, and again. Sadly, I don't think our modern societies really care about the lessons of history, and are more concerned with the here and now.

One other thing to consider is that History is rather subjective. European history has subtle differences to American history, Russian history has major difference to Western history etc. It really depends on who is writing and promoting the history... We just assume our own version of history is correct, but what are we actually basing this on? We just take it as fact without really considering where our history has come from...

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

Slavery has only really been abolished in the last 100 years. That's a really short time compared to the amount of time that Slavery was allowed and flourished. And even then, while there are legal considerations which prevent actual slavery, there are other more subtle forms of bondage which exist outside of the law, and are pretty much ignored.



Hmm... I know what you mean but humanity seems doomed to commit the same actions over and over even though we're aware of the consequences. take genocide for example. The Jewish Holocaust being the most famous, and most remembered worldwide. We remember our history of Europe and the millions of Jews and other "undesirables" who were murdered by the Third Reich, and yet there have been a number of major Genocides since then. Even inside of Europe we've seen the intentional desire and drive to destroy another culture completely.

History is a useful tool for us to remember what has happened, but Its only a hint for us to use. We need to do more with it to prevent it from happening again, and again. Sadly, I don't think our modern societies really care about the lessons of history, and are more concerned with the here and now.

One other thing to consider is that History is rather subjective. European history has subtle differences to American history, Russian history has major difference to Western history etc. It really depends on who is writing and promoting the history... We just assume our own version of history is correct, but what are we actually basing this on? We just take it as fact without really considering where our history has come from...

None of which are justified either and which will be rectified hopefully at some point.

History evolves. We are not doomed to repeat actions, although we learn very slowly considering our intelligence.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

None of which are justified either and which will be rectified hopefully at some point.

History evolves. We are not doomed to repeat actions, although we learn very slowly considering our intelligence.

History evolves and it revolves. Look at the Human focus on warfare. This is probably the most basic primitive passion that humans have. We build societies which promote nationalism and complete pride to be a certain nationality. Africa still destroys itself over tribalism and religious warfare.

Jessica Williams' book "50 Facts That Should Change The World" says a third of the world's population is at war.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_world_is_currently_at_war



From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.

The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports.

President Jimmy Carter wrote:

“We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.” Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

In the last one hundred years we have had two world wars. The major powers of the world have been involved in dozens of other "smaller" wars, never mind about Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. History may evolve, but humanity is till intent on certain activities which are far more awful than what it has "given up" in the past.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

History evolves and it revolves. Look at the Human focus on warfare. This is probably the most basic primitive passion that humans have. We build societies which promote nationalism and complete pride to be a certain nationality. Africa still destroys itself over tribalism and religious warfare.

Jessica Williams' book "50 Facts That Should Change The World" says a third of the world's population is at war.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_world_is_currently_at_war



From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.

The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports.


http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

In the last one hundred years we have had two world wars. The major powers of the world have been involved in dozens of other "smaller" wars, never mind about Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. History may evolve, but humanity is till intent on certain activities which are far more awful than what it has "given up" in the past.

As I said it evolves, albeit very slowly and unevenly. Hence why you still have wars today. The world is a more civilized place than it was 40 years ago or even 1000 years ago.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

As I said it evolves, albeit very slowly and unevenly. Hence why you still have wars today. The world is a more civilized place than it was 40 years ago or even 1000 years ago.

I always wonder about that. How are we more civilised? We continue to commit genocide against other humans.. War is commonplace in the last few generations. While we have laws in place to reduce their effects.. rape, murder, and other of human's darker actions are still quite common considering the amount of time we've had to consider their causes...

Personally, I think Civilisation has just learned to hide it better, and people have learned to ignore it more.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

I always wonder about that. How are we more civilised? We continue to commit genocide against other humans.. War is commonplace in the last few generations. While we have laws in place to reduce their effects.. rape, murder, and other of human's darker actions are still quite common considering the amount of time we've had to consider their causes...

Personally, I think Civilisation has just learned to hide it better, and people have learned to ignore it more.

It would be a mistake to assume that such behaviours are inherent and eternal within the general human populace. Imo such an assumption can lead to apathy and acceptance of unacceptable offenses against other human beings, including ourselves.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It would be a mistake to assume that such behaviours are inherent and eternal within the general human populace. Imo such an assumption can lead to apathy and acceptance of unacceptable offenses against other human beings, including ourselves.

Actually I prefer that we acknowledge these aspects in our human nature and seek to control them.

Denial is a worse offense considering the acceptance we have for these things in our society. Perhaps acceptance is too strong a word, but we do ignore these aspects of humanity to a greater degree as time passes. If someone does something wrong and against the laws we have put in place we lock them up in prisons away from society, even though we know that such gestures don't work to reform people. Its just a matter of putting them away from our sight. People judge our advanced society because we don't kill our offenders, and yet I have to wonder how civilised we really are when we're that unwilling to seek all possible answers.

I'm not saying that we have to glorify in our more destructive natures, but rather that we seek to understand them fully. History is a good tool to reflect on what has gone before, but we should never blind ourselves into thinking we're all that better. We still perform many of the same actions and mistakes of those gone before us, and better still we've gradually become more destructive on a grander scale, while losing the personal feeling of violence. Warfare is now all about pressing buttons, and obliterating the enemy.. God bless, the advancement of civilisation... :rolleyes:

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I prefer that we acknowledge these aspects in our human nature and seek to control them.

Denial is a worse offense considering the acceptance we have for these things in our society. Perhaps acceptance is too strong a word, but we do ignore these aspects of humanity to a greater degree as time passes. If someone does something wrong and against the laws we have put in place we lock them up in prisons away from society, even though we know that such gestures don't work to reform people. Its just a matter of putting them away from our sight. People judge our advanced society because we don't kill our offenders, and yet I have to wonder how civilised we really are when we're that unwilling to seek all possible answers.

I'm not saying that we have to glorify in our more destructive natures, but rather that we seek to understand them fully. History is a good tool to reflect on what has gone before, but we should never blind ourselves into thinking we're all that better. We still perform many of the same actions and mistakes of those gone before us, and better still we've gradually become more destructive on a grander scale, while losing the personal feeling of violence. Warfare is now all about pressing buttons, and obliterating the enemy.. God bless, the advancement of civilisation... :rolleyes:

I would agree that we should seek to understand the darker elements of humanity. I don't believe the desire for war/violence is inherent in all people, just that some people perpetuate it and others choose to support the institutions in place to allow it. The Cuban missile crisis would be unthinkable nowadays with supra international balances and checks. We have progressed from witch burnings and participating in global wars. Its a pendulum that swings back and forth but increasingly forwards if we choose to fight for that momentum (which makes it all the more meaningful). I believe we shouldn't accept the darker aspects, acknowledging them is fine, acting on them is not, our evolution is a work in progress, we have a choice to fashion a beautiful painting borne out of struggle or submit one of Saturn eating his children.

nyarlothothep

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I would agree that we should seek to understand the darker elements of humanity. I don't believe the desire for war/violence is inherent in all people, just that some people perpetuate it and others choose to support the institutions in place to allow it.

In all people? no. But many, yes. As for some people allowing it, I think if you were more honest, you'd say most people do. We all ignore the dangers in our lives from other people.

e.g. there was a series of burglaries in my neighborhood recently. A few old people were roughed up during these break in's, and two of the members were recognised as living in the holding site down the road. It was felt by most people that it would be better not to inform directly about these individuals since the law wouldn't protect people from their family members. Now, what sort of law would be in place that doesn't help people like that? And secondly why have we not developed a better law system to combat such? We have had plenty of time to do so...

The Cuban missile crisis would be unthinkable nowadays with supra international balances and checks.

One incident of that kind. Ever. One of those unique situations. Hardly a monument to progress. Instead we have missile firing tests from N.Korea, Pakistan, etc. Is it progress that there have been no nuclear bombs dropped on any cities since WW2, or is it a lack of progress that many countries still produce (and "improve") such weapons, even though they're considered unusable?

We have progressed from witch burnings and participating in global wars.

Really? The US taking prisoners from iraq and Afghanistan and placing them in Guantanamo bay could easily be construed as a witch hunt, and that from the nation supposedly the bastion of freedom and decency. In Africa, there are mutiple ongoing religious wars where people are dragged from their homes, interrogated about their racial backgrounds and killed.

As for global wars, we have had two. And yet since then we have had numerous wars involving some of the largest and most powerful nations. Look to the Iraq war... what did that achieve? Considering the history of such wars, shouldn't the "coalition" have known what would happen? And yet, it continues.

Its a pendulum that swings back and forth but increasingly forwards if we choose to fight for that momentum (which makes it all the more meaningful). I believe we shouldn't accept the darker aspects, acknowledging them is fine, acting on them is not, our evolution is a work in progress, we have a choice to fashion a beautiful painting borne out of struggle or submit one of Saturn eating his children.

I think it comes down to a matter of perception. We have changed the window dressing around many actions, and proclaimed that we're not as barbaric as before. We use technology as a shield to deny our rather base actions. I don't believe mankind has progressed all that far considering the amount of time we've had to do so. We've just learned to hide our shame better.

nyarlothothep

Deleted User wrote: »

In all people? no. But many, yes. As for some people allowing it, I think if you were more honest, you'd say most people do. We all ignore the dangers in our lives from other people.

e.g. there was a series of burglaries in my neighborhood recently. A few old people were roughed up during these break in's, and two of the members were recognised as living in the holding site down the road. It was felt by most people that it would be better not to inform directly about these individuals since the law wouldn't protect people from their family members. Now, what sort of law would be in place that doesn't help people like that? And secondly why have we not developed a better law system to combat such? We have had plenty of time to do so...



One incident of that kind. Ever. One of those unique situations. Hardly a monument to progress. Instead we have missile firing tests from N.Korea, Pakistan, etc. Is it progress that there have been no nuclear bombs dropped on any cities since WW2, or is it a lack of progress that many countries still produce (and "improve") such weapons, even though they're considered unusable?



Really? The US taking prisoners from iraq and Afghanistan and placing them in Guantanamo bay could easily be construed as a witch hunt, and that from the nation supposedly the bastion of freedom and decency. In Africa, there are mutiple ongoing religious wars where people are dragged from their homes, interrogated about their racial backgrounds and killed.

As for global wars, we have had two. And yet since then we have had numerous wars involving some of the largest and most powerful nations. Look to the Iraq war... what did that achieve? Considering the history of such wars, shouldn't the "coalition" have known what would happen? And yet, it continues.



I think it comes down to a matter of perception. We have changed the window dressing around many actions, and proclaimed that we're not as barbaric as before. We use technology as a shield to deny our rather base actions. I don't believe mankind has progressed all that far considering the amount of time we've had to do so. We've just learned to hide our shame better.

The point is such a situation would be unlikely again on the part of a world superpower given that there would be serious international repercussions.

Again the difference between Guantanamo and witch burnings is that no one thinks they're justified except a few extremists who got into power. There is a redress of sorts, weak though it may be.

I did say that progress is uneven. In some countries the culture is sufficiently backward, through various historical and socioeconomic factors. These things can be improved on. There is a constant tug of war also. But you should travel back in time to 1400 and let me know if you think we haven't progressed significantly since then.

The Iraq war wasn't supported by the majority of nations. You also have to account for a fruitcase administration which stole both elections. There are many proxy wars carried out by the US. But consider this, it's highly unlikely that here in Europe many people would willingly support a WW1/2 culture of war.

The problem I find with your position is that it seems to imply a tacit acceptance for the way things are. Your making the assumption that we're doomed to repeat history and are slaves to biological imperatives. While this might be the case I don't think it is necessarily so. We are the only species that can reflect on our actions, to break our programming if you will. I believe we can guide our own evolution. Therefore even if we fail in improving the lot of humanity it is a case between either trying to do this or not trying at all. One choice dooms us to failure and repeating our mistakes.

dsmythy

Deleted User wrote: »

I always wonder about that. How are we more civilised? We continue to commit genocide against other humans.. War is commonplace in the last few generations. While we have laws in place to reduce their effects.. rape, murder, and other of human's darker actions are still quite common considering the amount of time we've had to consider their causes...

Personally, I think Civilisation has just learned to hide it better, and people have learned to ignore it more.

I think it might be a case of human cruelty flourishing in all it's forms and with little respite but that it's coverage of the planet is becoming smaller.

ChocolateSauce

No, if we did that almost everyone would be looked down on, and history would have few heroes, only losers.

Jefferson would be a human rights abuser, Churchill would be a war criminal, the finest of Rome's emperors would be military dictators who cared for naught but power, the great thinkers of anicent Greece would be ignorant barbarians, Ghandi would be a racist pedophile, and we today would be viewed with disgust by the (hopefully) better, more civilised people of the future.

I think the notion of allowing "brownie points" for time elapsed/culture at the time is called Zeitgeist. We must view history differently than today, because society was different.

dreamlogic

Davidth88 wrote: »

Should we judge people who lived maybe 150 years ago ( or earlier , or later ) by today's acceptable standards.

I think yes and no!
We can and should judge the people in positions of power and authority simply because they were the ones who had the luxury of being able to deliberate and choose the outcome of a situation.
Other members of society who were simply living their day-to-day life eking out a living within the parameters of how that society functioned - I don't think they should be judged.

Queen-Mise

no we shouldnt judge people by todays standards.
The term for it is anachronistic - societal values, laws etc etc were all different throughout the ages.
To judge the past, it needs to be judged within the confines of its own era.
The one example that always springs to my mind is that of Black Beauty; it was the norm in 19th century to treat horses that way.
Just as it was the norm two centuries earlier to burn catholics or protestants depending on what monarch was in power.

We have to be very careful of how we judge the past.

Queen-Mise

how we look at julius caesar, cromwell, louis xvi or churchill have all to be seen within the context of their own time.

This is one of my bugbears so please forgive me for ranting.

dreamlogic

Queen-Mise wrote: »

no we shouldnt judge people by todays standards.
The term for it is anachronistic - societal values, laws etc etc were all different throughout the ages.
To judge the past, it needs to be judged within the confines of its own era.
The one example that always springs to my mind is that of Black Beauty; it was the norm in 19th century to treat horses that way.
Just as it was the norm two centuries earlier to burn catholics or protestants depending on what monarch was in power.

We have to be very careful of how we judge the past.

We always have to consider who has written the version of history we are referring to. This is not just a simple side issue, it is an integral part of what the history text is actually saying - who is doing the talking.
You will find that most text book history(especially the further back you go) was written by the winners in that society. Consider several hundred years ago for example when only a certain segment of society had writing tools and means of distributing information. Contrast with recent history when pretty much anyone can write a pamphlet or today anyone can put up a blog to document their lives.

I tend to agree with what klaz has posted on this thread.
Human beings today are not fundamentally different or better or worse morality-wise than we were in the past.

Queen-Mise wrote: »

This is one of my bugbears so please forgive me for ranting.

Not ranting at all, we can agree to disagree

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

Even when slavery became unfashionable they just changed the name and called them "indentured servants".

Not exactly the same thing, but I get your point. Indeed, nowadays it is simply called debt. Or alimony.

Queen-Mise wrote: »

how we look at julius caesar, cromwell, louis xvi or churchill have all to be seen within the context of their own time.

I'd tend to agree. I think there is only one moral constant throughout history; that at every point in it people were convinced that their moral outlook was right. We are no different.

Morality is a funny thing. The Inquisition was, in our eyes, a barbaric chapter of history; yet from the perspective of those implementing it, they were doing something deeply good. What did the brief lives of those tortured and killed really matter when one was saving them from an eternity of torment. Freedom of religion and the damnation that it would guarantee heretics would be utterly immoral in their eyes.

We would be horrified by the Roman practice of infanticide, where a child was born ill or deformed - and a Roman would be horrified by our own refusal to practice it.

Even the Nazis thought they were the good guys.

Of course, this will not stop us judging our ancestors with our values - after all, we have it right. And neither will it stop our descendants judging, with their values, the folly of our own, amoral, beliefs.

But by then we'll all be dead. So who really gives a toss?

dreamlogic

As a society today it could be argued strongly that we are not in a postition to judge anybody. If morality(in theory) says that killing is wrong. But yet war continues to be an accepted activity in today's world then it would be hypocritical of us to accuse people from other eras of barbarism etc.

On the other hand it could be argued equally strongly that the only way we can progress as a society is to be rigorous in judging the events of the past. Perhaps there has been far too little judgement and far too little attention paid to history - too much skimming over the details, too much romanticizing and hero-worship etc.
In particular those who are in positions of leadership should also be both knowledgeable and opinionated as to the actions of their predecessors. Otherwise the same patterns of bad decisions and mistakes are destined to be repeated. Why is war still an acceptable activity in today's world? Mainly because people make excuses for it, just like their parents did and their parents before them etc.

nyarlothothep

Queen-Mise wrote: »

no we shouldnt judge people by todays standards.
The term for it is anachronistic - societal values, laws etc etc were all different throughout the ages.
To judge the past, it needs to be judged within the confines of its own era.
The one example that always springs to my mind is that of Black Beauty; it was the norm in 19th century to treat horses that way.
Just as it was the norm two centuries earlier to burn catholics or protestants depending on what monarch was in power.

We have to be very careful of how we judge the past.

well, we in the present have the choice to critically evaluate our culture, and if it comes up short then we also have the choice whether to accept it or change it. Just as people in the past did, albeit in a much more limited capacity. The constitutional rights we have now were hard won, from a rejection of the dominant cultural norm in the past. So yes, as dreamlogic said, most people didn't have much of a say but...imo those who actively supported and preserved cruel and irrational behaviours due to their own corruption or inability to look upon their own culture with a rational gaze should be judged.