4 ms·
> Just goes to show that there is usually a huge difference between what we think of historical figures and how they actually were. It shows that people are co
by chimeracoder 14y ago
> Just goes to show that there is usually a huge difference between what we think of historical figures and how they actually were.
It shows that people are complicated and multifaceted. While we have a tendency to either laud or vilify figures (with nothing in between), in reality, historical figures can be both "good" and "bad" in different aspects of their lives... just like the rest of us.
My favorite example of this is Helen Keller[1]. Almost nobody these days knows anything about Helen Keller beyond the age of 18 - they know that learned to communicate despite being deaf and blind, but the nearly 70 years of her life after that are almost buried in history.
Which is a shame, because Helen Keller would have been a notable figure in her own right even if it weren't for her disability[2].
But because she was a member of the official Socialist party, we can't use her story as an inspirational lesson and mention that she held political beliefs that we may or may not agree with. Instead have to make a judgement call as to whether her "good" or her "bad[3]" side is more important to teach, and then forget about the rest.
Worse, this principle is applied in reverse to dehumanize people whom history has classified as villains. The result is that our history is filled with monochromatic caricatures, and we forget that, were we to see the complete picture, our modern-day "villains" may not look so different (for better or for worse!)
[1] I believe Loewen talks about this in his excellent book Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Political_activities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Political_activiti...
[2] Naturally, this presumes that you either disagree with socialist politics or think that history lessons should be politically neutral, which is the predominant belief in the USA.
- aufreak3 14y agoIt is more complicated I think even in the case of Einstein. The period of strained relationship mentioned coincides with the period during which he was building up General Relativity (which he published in 1916). Given the intensity of work that would've been needed for that (all that gorgeous new math and physical insights!) with wrong turns to avoid in every move, it is well conceivable that his marriage was placed at risk. This list might even have been his way of expressing that his life priority is finding a unified theory of everything. Now when I write that, does our welcoming of his great contributions need to make us guilty of also endorsing morals we perceive behind this "list of demands" he made of his wife?
- noonespecial 14y agoI like to think of it backwards; If I knew that I had a contribution to make to humanity as great as Einstein's, would I willingly sacrifice my relationship with my family to make it?
- pfortuny 14y agoI hope I would not. The future is irrelevant because unknown in the face of a single present person.
- jacquesm 14y agoThat's an extremely difficult moral problem. It's akin to asking yourself if you would rather rescue the child on the left or the 3 people on the right when given the choice. And then with various permutations for the child being yours or a stranger and/or the people on the right being your parents and / or strangers. We are not well equipped to make such decisions.
- aufreak3 14y agoIt is a tough moral problem, but one that societies of old have recognized and formalized. For example, most all religions have some formal structure where a person with a "higher calling" can take up a monkhood of some sort. Formal induction into monkhood made their severance from family ties public and contractual, much as the formal wedding ceremony publicizes a man-woman relationship. We just don't have a socially accepted notion of "scientific monkhood" yet I suppose.
- intended 14y agoWell, the stereotype of the absent minded professor has existed for a long time now, as well as the hermit inventor/philosopher. Perhaps not monkhood, but as an eccentric removing himself from society is a common occurrence. And for sufficiently levels of ability and talent, people are willing to forgo social convention. I forget who it was, but one of the great ones long gone was extremely uncomfortable around people. To the extent that people were told that they should casually walk up to him, and without addressing him directly, talk to the air about the problem they were facing or had come up with.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]