Off Topic General Election

[Jennings60s]

I agree we ought to be careful about judging the past. Certain things are eternal - thou shalt not kill - but even then many societies saw no problem in killing the weak or infirm and of course enemies. However racism, sexism , homophobia etc are products of Western "enlightened" thinking. Just because in the past these values were held differently does not mean we can condemn those from the past. We can praise people we consider "ahead of their time" who sought for example to end slavery and the like but for people who grew up in a time when slavery was the norm it is wrong to condemn.

 

[colognehornet]

I agree we ought to be careful about judging the past. Certain things are eternal - thou shalt not kill - but even then many societies saw no problem in killing the weak or infirm and of course enemies. However racism, sexism , homophobia etc are products of Western "enlightened" thinking. Just because in the past these values were held differently does not mean we can condemn those from the past. We can praise people we consider "ahead of their time" who sought for example to end slavery and the like but for people who grew up in a time when slavery was the norm it is wrong to condemn.

Interesting answer Ed. The implication is there that we, who have had the supposed benefits of Western Enlightenment thinking, are somehow more developed than those ages (or civilizations) which didn't (or don't) have that advantage. That history is a form of progression, where what comes later must be more advanced than what went before. In some aspects the past (who did not have the experience of the enlightenment) were more advanced (dare I use that word) than in later ages - the Romans actually had black African senators sitting in Rome. Warfare is a good example - technology has enabled us to distance ourselves from the results of our actions - war has become, for many in the west, a TV. event. Those who declare the wars do not have to fight in them, and the killing itself has become more impersonal - through drones, bombing from a safe height, missiles from a safe distance etc. There is more blood than ever before, but the perpetrators of it don't have to see it at close hand like the warrior of the middle ages. I suspect that Richard the first or Saladin might have had a moral problem with eg. high altitude bombing, or using drones - it might just have insulted their sense of honour a little. So in this sense history may not have progressed. I prefer to think that ages are 'unique', with their own Zeitgeist, rather than in terms of 'progression' through time. Living in an age of zombyism through consumerism, digital media, dominance of the market even over our thinking processes etc. it is hard to believe that we are more advanced (studies have actually shown that the human IQ. in the West is dropping). So maybe we are less racist or sexist than the Victorians but I somehow suspect that we may also be (in some ways) less intelligent as well.

 

[Jennings60s]

You are overthinking my reply. Of course each age has the benefit of knowing about the past so it is then a choice of whether to change course. The Romans did not have 2,000 years of extra history to draw on. You would hope that as mankind is supposed to be intelligent it will learn lessons from the past.
It may well be that other cultures from the past have "better" ( no such thing really) values but we have chosen in the light of theirs to go with ours. I happen to think that not being racist, sexist of homophobic is a good thing - whether or not people shared those values a long time ago or in other parts of the world is for those who study such things to tell us. An example I happen to know about is that many native American tribes had no problem with homosexuality. That seems to have become a major problem in the monotheistic religions. I also happen to think that aboriginal Australians had a superb understanding of their environment - which we seem to have lost.

 

[colognehornet]

You are overthinking my reply. Of course each age has the benefit of knowing about the past so it is then a choice of whether to change course. The Romans did not have 2,000 years of extra history to draw on. You would hope that as mankind is supposed to be intelligent it will learn lessons from the past.
It may well be that other cultures from the past have "better" ( no such thing really) values but we have chosen in the light of theirs to go with ours. I happen to think that not being racist, sexist of homophobic is a good thing - whether or not people shared those values a long time ago or in other parts of the world is for those who study such things to tell us. An example I happen to know about is that many native American tribes had no problem with homosexuality. That seems to have become a major problem in the monotheistic religions. I also happen to think that aboriginal Australians had a superb understanding of their environment - which we seem to have lost.

In some ways Ed. racism got a massive boost from the colonialism and industrialization of the 19th Century together with some bizarre interpretations of Darwin. Sexism and homophobia also from the puritanical nature of the Victorians - the 18th Century was much looser in some ways. A novel like Tom Jones, from Henry Fielding, would have been much more taboo a hundred years later. Shakespeare's portrayal of Othello is also less laden with negative stereotypes than the literature 250 years later.