3 ms·

> these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the soci

by zeteo 13y ago

> these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. Plus, it erases distinction between people like Lincoln who, while expressing very racist views, did a lot to bring things closer to equality; and others like say John C. Calhoun, who did their utmost to push the opposite way. History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend.

parennoob 13y ago
Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. No, screw that. If they were racists, I am going to call them racists. I don't give a flying f--k that they "did a lot to bring things closer to equality". What am I supposed to do, be grateful? History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend. I'm not the one waxing eloquent about the demise of this ruling class -- the author is. My point is that it's a good thing that they are no longer in power, regardless of what historical context their (extremely flawed) behaviour might have been in.
- bmelton 13y ago
  In the future, there is likely someone who will be equally able to look back at some primitive activity we're currently engaged in right now and call all of us idiots for some reason or another. If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian. If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer. If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary. Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013. Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality. Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable. "those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."
  - RodericDay 13y ago
    the fact that "smart people" go along with bad social mores says more about the faults with who we denote as "smart people" than about the way we should judge people from the past. you say "if they were smart today they wouldn't be racists", I say "they probably don't deserve as much credit as they get, if they were racist while a tiny minority of people was aware of the problem and trying to move past it". there have always been people against slavery, against the oppression of women, against homophobia. don't dismiss their efforts and achievements in examining society just because you don't want to sully the image of technocratic heroes.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      I'm speaking out of context from those people specifically as, for the most part, I don't have any particular adoration for them. Regardless, you simply cannot take things out of the context of history. In that day, it was common to find scientific evidence (or at least reports masquerading as scientific from otherwise esteemed scientists) suggesting that non-caucasian races were inferior, and weren't meant to be treated as equals. It wasn't too long ago that the common knowledge was that homosexuality led to increased and unavoidable risk of diseases. It's too easy to look back on history and decry those idiots for succumbing to common knowledge, but it is naive to do so.. and is analogous to mocking them for letting so many die of Polio, when it is so easily vaccinated against now.
cglee 13y ago
> And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. So let's not celebrate, or even justify, that. We don't have to call them uncool, we don't have to call them anything. Instead, let's celebrate the progressive voices (for the time) who fought against racism, sexism, elitism and who probably paid a heavy price for it. Unfortunately, those are the ones who don't get to write their autobiographies, and who we know very little about.
rtpg 13y ago
Ruling classes have a lot of influence in society, and thus define the social norms. If the society was racist, sexist, and elitist, it is extremely likely that it's because the ruling class is such. Thus they get to take responsibility for their views. Be it from ignorance or from spite, bigotry is still bigotry.

by zeteo 13y ago

parennoob 13y ago

Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. No, screw that. If they were racists, I am going to call them racists. I don't give a flying f--k that they "did a lot to bring things closer to equality". What am I supposed to do, be grateful? History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend. I'm not the one waxing eloquent about the demise of this ruling class -- the author is. My point is that it's a good thing that they are no longer in power, regardless of what historical context their (extremely flawed) behaviour might have been in.

bmelton 13y ago
In the future, there is likely someone who will be equally able to look back at some primitive activity we're currently engaged in right now and call all of us idiots for some reason or another. If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian. If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer. If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary. Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013. Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality. Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable. "those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."
- RodericDay 13y ago
  the fact that "smart people" go along with bad social mores says more about the faults with who we denote as "smart people" than about the way we should judge people from the past. you say "if they were smart today they wouldn't be racists", I say "they probably don't deserve as much credit as they get, if they were racist while a tiny minority of people was aware of the problem and trying to move past it". there have always been people against slavery, against the oppression of women, against homophobia. don't dismiss their efforts and achievements in examining society just because you don't want to sully the image of technocratic heroes.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I'm speaking out of context from those people specifically as, for the most part, I don't have any particular adoration for them. Regardless, you simply cannot take things out of the context of history. In that day, it was common to find scientific evidence (or at least reports masquerading as scientific from otherwise esteemed scientists) suggesting that non-caucasian races were inferior, and weren't meant to be treated as equals. It wasn't too long ago that the common knowledge was that homosexuality led to increased and unavoidable risk of diseases. It's too easy to look back on history and decry those idiots for succumbing to common knowledge, but it is naive to do so.. and is analogous to mocking them for letting so many die of Polio, when it is so easily vaccinated against now.

cglee 13y ago

> And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. So let's not celebrate, or even justify, that. We don't have to call them uncool, we don't have to call them anything. Instead, let's celebrate the progressive voices (for the time) who fought against racism, sexism, elitism and who probably paid a heavy price for it. Unfortunately, those are the ones who don't get to write their autobiographies, and who we know very little about.

rtpg 13y ago

Ruling classes have a lot of influence in society, and thus define the social norms. If the society was racist, sexist, and elitist, it is extremely likely that it's because the ruling class is such. Thus they get to take responsibility for their views. Be it from ignorance or from spite, bigotry is still bigotry.