Skip to main content

But judging history makes me and my friends feel so good about ourselves

I went on the same rant a NUMBER of times yesterday, including on Twitter, to my brother on Gchat, to my friend at dinner, and to another friend on the phone after dinner. This rant was about, of course, judging things out of their historical context.

Don't do that thing

Sure, it's really easy and kind of fun to look back on the past with a condescending smile, shake your head at their opinions and ways of life and just swagger about, content in your superiority, but oh, hold on -- I think that might be a thing that assholes do.

Over there. Go.

The world (by which I mean "the West," which is an example of ME being an asshole) seems to be moving forward regarding social issues. We are getting better. But it's not any one of us that's causing that. We know not to be jerks to transgender people and not to throw eggs at black people and not to yell slurs at gay people and not to put Japanese people in internment camps NOT because we just know that with our superior, shiny brains, but because society as a whole has gotten to the point where its overall knowledge knows that that is wrong. But we're still screwing things up, and in 70 years, people are going to look at us with condescending smiles and go "Well, they might've gotten gay marriage right, but look at equal pay for women and gender binary problems and A MILLION OTHER THINGS."

This is like the genius 19-year-olds in my 18th Century British Lit class who decided Lady Mary Wortley Montagu was racist in 1715 Constantinople. Really? Was she? Because records indicate she was learning Arabic and thought the veil was freeing and not actually restrictive, and that's actually kind of amazing for 1715 and if YOU lived then you'd probably ask her if she was becoming a Turk and then laugh lightly while fluttering your fan.

If you find something out about a historical figure that makes them seem less-than-enlightened, 1) What a shock. 2) How much do you expect of this person? Do you know how hard it is to go against ANY prevailing opinion of your time, let alone all of them? Have you tried telling anyone that you didn't think Frozen was good? Because let me tell you, the 15 minutes after that statement are not pleasant. 

So let's change that to a majorly disputed and highly charged social and/or political issue. Let's say you take a stand on one of those. Oh -- I'm sorry -- the Future would like you to take a stand on ALL of them, and please choose the incredibly unpopular side, because the Future would like to not feel uncomfortable about you while reading Wikipedia.

Don't judge things out of the context of their time. That's what dumb people do.


Popular posts from this blog

How to Build a Girl Introductory Post, which is full of wonderful things you probably want to read

Acclaimed (in England mostly) lady Caitlin Moran has a novel coming out. A NOVEL. Where before she has primarily stuck to essays. Curious as we obviously were about this, I and a group of bloggers are having a READALONG of said novel, probably rife with spoilers (maybe they don't really matter for this book, though, so you should totally still read my posts). This is all hosted/cared for/lovingly nursed to health by Emily at As the Crowe Flies (and Reads) because she has a lovely fancy job at an actual bookshop ( Odyssey Books , where you can in fact pre-order this book and then feel delightful about yourself for helping an independent store). Emily and I have negotiated the wonders of Sri Lankan cuisine and wandered the Javits Center together. Would that I could drink with her more often than I have. I feel like we could get to this point, Emily INTRODUCTION-wise (I might've tipped back a little something this evening, thus the constant asides), I am Alice. I enjoy

Harry Potter 2013 Readalong Signup Post of Amazingness and Jollity

Okay, people. Here it is. Where you sign up to read the entire Harry Potter series (or to reminisce fondly), starting January 2013, assuming we all survive the Mayan apocalypse. I don't think I'm even going to get to Tina and Bette's reunion on The L Word until after Christmas, so here's hopin'. You guys know how this works. Sign up if you want to. If you're new to the blog, know that we are mostly not going to take this seriously. And when we do take it seriously, it's going to be all Monty Python quotes when we disagree on something like the other person's opinion on Draco Malfoy. So be prepared for your parents being likened to hamsters. If you want to write lengthy, heartfelt essays, that is SWELL. But this is maybe not the readalong for you. It's gonna be more posts with this sort of thing: We're starting Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone January 4th. Posts will be on Fridays. The first post will be some sort of hilar

Book Blogger Hop, Pt II

All right. The question for this week is:  "Do you read only one book at a time, or do you have several going at once?" Oh-ho my. I have an issue with book commitment. I start a new book, and it's exciting and fresh, and I get really jazzed about it, and then 20% of the way through, almost without fail, I start getting bored and want to start another book. I once had seven books going at the same time, because I kept getting bored and starting new ones. It's a sickness. Right now I'm being pretty good and working on The Monk , Northanger Abbey , Kissing the Witch , and I'm about to start Waiting for the Barbarians since my friend lent it to me. But The Monk and NA are basically books I only read when I'm at work, so I don't see it so much as working on four books, as having books in different locales. Yes. This entry wasn't as good as some of the others, but I shall rally on the morrow. Yes I shall.