Can we judge the past?

Starting off with a banger, the first thing i wanna talk about is the idea we’re starting with in my “What is an American?” class. I’ll provide links for the videos we watched in class, but the main ideas for either side of the argument should be pretty obvious; either we can judge past historical figures for their obscene actions because ethics and morals are timeless, or we cannot judge them because they were a product of their time.

Obviously it’s a divisive argument, and there are decades of literature on the subject that are much more academic than a college students blog, but I digress. I find it laughable that we’d arbitrarily decide certain historical figures are exempt from criticism because of the assumption that the morals and ethics of modern todays society were so wildly different from their time that their actions were justifiable.

In a video titled “What is Presentism? Historical sin of applying present-day virtues, attitudes & experiences on Past” on a youtube channel called timeline (where the speaker seems to have a level of arrogance and self-righteousness that shockingly rivals my own), the creator suggests that holding historical figures to modern standards is tantamount to suggesting that they “should have known what we know”. I can certainly understand the appeal of this argument, as it’s simple to understand and effectively undermines a lot of counter arguments by saying it’s essentially impossible to logically apply modern values to the past. I also think that it’s somewhat misleading and wholly moronic.

For one, it has an implied premise that historical figures did not know of the morals and values of modern society, but that’s simply not true. Beyond the fact that many of the figures heavily discussed existed in the last two or three centuries, which is well past the point when major philosophical systems were formed; many of these same figures were even heavily criticized for their views in their own time. Take, for example, one of the most discussed people when having this debate; the founding father Thomas Jefferson (i was going to go with Robert E. Lee, but it felt too easy). He existed in a time when the slave trade flourished, but even then there was a widespread notion that slavery was wrong, even among the founding fathers themselves! I’ll link an article listing more than I feel like discussing, but just a few of the major historical figures that fought to abolish slavery while Jefferson practiced it were John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Marquis de Lafayette, Benjamin Franklin, etc. Slavery persisted some 50 odd years afterwards, not because slavers thought themselves morally righteous but because it was profitable. The idea that it was the common opinion at the time is shaky at best and outright wrong at worst. Not to mention the basic concepts of humanity that most slavers found themselves rather disgustingly outright ignoring. I simply cannot believe that genuine humans looked at other people and thought themselves morally right when they said “I own you” while whipping their backs and raping their wives.

BUT let’s suppose for a moment that they did think they were morally righteous to be doing those things. Why? what possible justification was there for such a thing? The starter answer is that they are just less human. The slavers thought white people were more human than other races. Why? because they were dumber and less capable. Why would you think that? And on and on, thus is the problem of infinite regression. I’ll save us some time and tell you this line of thinking really just ends with one of two things. 1. It’s the way it has always been, or 2. some religious, or legal reason of the form “the bible/the law says it’s allowed”. To the first I say, you should feel stupid for saying that, and if you don’t then I imagine you were dropped on your head as a kid. To the second I say, I follow a religion called punch-you-in-the-throat-ism, why don’t we sail out into international waters and I’ll teach you all about it.

It seems I got a little carried away with my slavery discussion, so let’s get back to the main debate at hand.

For two (yes it took this long to get to two) why CAN’T we judge them. For a moment let’s suppose that any given famous historical figure that is seen in a positive light has only ever been morally righteous in their own given time, but was later found to be morally un-righteous compared to modern standards. If the point of studying history is to learn from the past, what’s the problem with saying people in the past were wrong? What’s wrong with saying that entire past societies were wrong? Is part of the point of living not to grow and change? Then is part of the point of a whole society not to grow and change? I don’t necessarily see a problem with defining a person as evil even if they weren’t seen as such in their own time. Similarly I don’t see a problem with revering someone for their good actions while condemning them for their bad ones.

It just occurred to me that such a conclusion might be where the disconnect between the two sides is. People who don’t want to hold historical figures accountable think that the other side wants to erase history by removing anyone who’s ever done anything wrong. People who want to hold them accountable think the other side wants to put evil people on pedestals and ignore their wrongdoing because they contributed to history in a significant way.

The most logical solution and therefore the least likely to ever happen is to just give all the information, good and bad. If your going to build a statue of Robert E. Lee, put “Racist” right up there next to general. A lot of people are going to say this just gives power to teachers to influence the morals of students (which is kind of the point of teachers, i think?), but that is true either way. A liberal teacher will tell you Regan was a monster and a psycho, a nazi teacher will tell you Martin Luther King Junior was a warmongering street urchin.

That’s just how things are, I suppose.

Conclusions

• We should hold historical figures accountable for their actions, being dead doesn’t exempt you from being evil
• Something being widely practiced doesn’t make it widely right
• Slavery has been and always will be bad (I’m looking at you, American prison system)

Sources

• Austin, D. (2020, July 10). Anti-slavery revolutionaries who practiced what they preached. The Hill. https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/506782-anti-slavery-revolutionaries-who-practiced-what-they-preached/
• YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVmvl0dBV70
• YouTube. (n.d.-b). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiTcSgMM06o&t=66s