6 ms·

Ostracism is a well known punishment in the western world. Greeks used to practice it. So are the recent woke cancellation standards. It is not unique to India.

flangola7 4y ago
>woke cancellation This really isn't in the spirit of HN. "Woke" is just the latest term for social justice. There are people who don't want a society that is just but they can't say it in the open (as much) any more, so they come up with euphemisms. The previous was "politically correct."
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  The non-woke cancel too, they just don't do it on social media.
  - ehnto 4y ago
    I think it is against the spirit of HN, because it is a shallow discussion terminator and an ad hominem all in one. It is too ambiguous to be about anything in particular, so we should just talk about the real issues specifically and in depth. If it is an issue to be against caste reforms, discuss that, don't just call someone woke and close the book. It is also a bit of a dog whistle even if accidentally, since it isn't actually about any specific issue, but people can still identify that they are against it. Call something "woke" and suddenly people who never cared about the issue before will have a problem with it. Language is weird though, the word has evolved a weird meaning and been co-opted by political agendas, so it is just nice to not drag that shitshow into real discussions as well.
- lolinder 4y ago
  > There are people who don't want a society that is just but they can't say it in the open (as much) any more, so they come up with euphemisms. There are also reasonable and good people who have legitimate disagreements about what a just society looks like and don't appreciate the "you're either with us or against us" attitude you're projecting. For example, I can be 100% on board with treating everyone respectfully and equally under the law while still thinking it's harmful to try to erase the contributions of good people from centuries past on the grounds that they weren't good enough by our modern standards. That's the kind of thing that I label "woke cancellation", and you'll never persuade me that judging a historical figure based on our modern values is just.
  - roguecoder 4y ago
    ... which "good people" are you talking about here? I haven't heard anyone talking smack about Hildegard von Bingen, for example, or Isaac Newton. I have heard people who believe we should tell the whole truth about historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, who raped a teenage slave he owned & perpetrated genocide of Indigenous people, or Christopher Columbus, whose contemporaries condemned the genocides he committed, but that isn't "cancelling" anyone: it is just no longer being willing to lie for the comfort of the powerful.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    You know that the contemporary abolitionist Quakers of the time condemned slave owners by those contemporary religious standards, right? And that various contemporary religions were against the kind of hagiography and 'idolatry' embodied in statues. You don't need to impose modern morals to find fault with heroes of the past (or the statues made to them). Otherwise I agree with roguecoder. Telling more of the truth about people and situations is to the benefit of history and civics. It shows us that flawed people can lead, and it shows us that our present leaders and politicians may have serious flaws, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective leaders. It just means they have stuff to work on, and we shouldn't okay whatever they do as long as it is to our benefit (i.e. the ends don't always justify the means).
    - lolinder 4y ago
      > It shows us that flawed people can lead, and it shows us that our present leaders and politicians may have serious flaws, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective leaders. If this were the goal, I would embrace it wholeheartedly. I have no problem with historians telling true stories in all their messy details, and I'm fine with removing historical figures from pedestals and showing how they were flawed humans just like those we have today. What I strongly object to is that in most cases telling and learning from the truth is obviously not the goal: see the massive witch hunts surrounding James Webb. It was never important whether or not the accusations against him were correct, the important thing was to drag another name through the muck in order to score virtue points in modern politics. The attitude driving most of these incidents isn't one of respectful-but-full disclosure, it's more reminiscent of people in the Middle Ages digging up and mutilating corpses to make a political or religious point.
glasshug 4y ago
The Athenian practice historians call "ostracism" was a specific system used to exile individual political rivals. It was rare, codified, targeted, and usually used against the powerful or ascendent. It shares a word with a modern broad concept of shunning, but shouldn't be confused with it. It certainly doesn't relate to broad discrimination or "woke cancellation."
- cld8483 4y ago
  I don't say this to defend the practice, but shunning is not modern. Shunning was advocated by Paul the Apostle (or whoever wrote those letters to the Corinthians) about two thousand years ago. Banishment and social exclusion has also been observed in many social animals besides humans.
- wickedsickeune 4y ago
  It wasn't even social shunning, just a political defence against extreme popularity to prevent tyranny. After the expiration of ostracism you could rejoin Athens exactly as you were before.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

flangola7 4y ago

>woke cancellation This really isn't in the spirit of HN. "Woke" is just the latest term for social justice. There are people who don't want a society that is just but they can't say it in the open (as much) any more, so they come up with euphemisms. The previous was "politically correct."

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
The non-woke cancel too, they just don't do it on social media.
- ehnto 4y ago
  I think it is against the spirit of HN, because it is a shallow discussion terminator and an ad hominem all in one. It is too ambiguous to be about anything in particular, so we should just talk about the real issues specifically and in depth. If it is an issue to be against caste reforms, discuss that, don't just call someone woke and close the book. It is also a bit of a dog whistle even if accidentally, since it isn't actually about any specific issue, but people can still identify that they are against it. Call something "woke" and suddenly people who never cared about the issue before will have a problem with it. Language is weird though, the word has evolved a weird meaning and been co-opted by political agendas, so it is just nice to not drag that shitshow into real discussions as well.
lolinder 4y ago
> There are people who don't want a society that is just but they can't say it in the open (as much) any more, so they come up with euphemisms. There are also reasonable and good people who have legitimate disagreements about what a just society looks like and don't appreciate the "you're either with us or against us" attitude you're projecting. For example, I can be 100% on board with treating everyone respectfully and equally under the law while still thinking it's harmful to try to erase the contributions of good people from centuries past on the grounds that they weren't good enough by our modern standards. That's the kind of thing that I label "woke cancellation", and you'll never persuade me that judging a historical figure based on our modern values is just.
- roguecoder 4y ago
  ... which "good people" are you talking about here? I haven't heard anyone talking smack about Hildegard von Bingen, for example, or Isaac Newton. I have heard people who believe we should tell the whole truth about historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, who raped a teenage slave he owned & perpetrated genocide of Indigenous people, or Christopher Columbus, whose contemporaries condemned the genocides he committed, but that isn't "cancelling" anyone: it is just no longer being willing to lie for the comfort of the powerful.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  You know that the contemporary abolitionist Quakers of the time condemned slave owners by those contemporary religious standards, right? And that various contemporary religions were against the kind of hagiography and 'idolatry' embodied in statues. You don't need to impose modern morals to find fault with heroes of the past (or the statues made to them). Otherwise I agree with roguecoder. Telling more of the truth about people and situations is to the benefit of history and civics. It shows us that flawed people can lead, and it shows us that our present leaders and politicians may have serious flaws, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective leaders. It just means they have stuff to work on, and we shouldn't okay whatever they do as long as it is to our benefit (i.e. the ends don't always justify the means).
  - lolinder 4y ago
    > It shows us that flawed people can lead, and it shows us that our present leaders and politicians may have serious flaws, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective leaders. If this were the goal, I would embrace it wholeheartedly. I have no problem with historians telling true stories in all their messy details, and I'm fine with removing historical figures from pedestals and showing how they were flawed humans just like those we have today. What I strongly object to is that in most cases telling and learning from the truth is obviously not the goal: see the massive witch hunts surrounding James Webb. It was never important whether or not the accusations against him were correct, the important thing was to drag another name through the muck in order to score virtue points in modern politics. The attitude driving most of these incidents isn't one of respectful-but-full disclosure, it's more reminiscent of people in the Middle Ages digging up and mutilating corpses to make a political or religious point.

glasshug 4y ago

The Athenian practice historians call "ostracism" was a specific system used to exile individual political rivals. It was rare, codified, targeted, and usually used against the powerful or ascendent. It shares a word with a modern broad concept of shunning, but shouldn't be confused with it. It certainly doesn't relate to broad discrimination or "woke cancellation."

cld8483 4y ago
I don't say this to defend the practice, but shunning is not modern. Shunning was advocated by Paul the Apostle (or whoever wrote those letters to the Corinthians) about two thousand years ago. Banishment and social exclusion has also been observed in many social animals besides humans.
wickedsickeune 4y ago
It wasn't even social shunning, just a political defence against extreme popularity to prevent tyranny. After the expiration of ostracism you could rejoin Athens exactly as you were before.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]