the mistake of Judging people of the past by todays standards

[Zenos]

I was talking with a freind of mine and some how we got on the topic of two of my fave writers form the early 20th Century Robert E.Howard and H.P.Lovecraft,and he started ranting about how racist they where and how people back then where sooo racist.

I stopped him and said:

The problem is that we look back on peopels of the past with so-called enlightened eyes,ands proclaim people of Mr.Howards era racist, like some how we have the goods now on enlightenment,when the fact is that looking back on his time and calling them racist,shows people or not only not trying to understand the era and the people of the era,but that you have made up your mind and refuse to even accept the fact that there where social changes happened even then.



You don't judge people of another Era by your Eras standards,because you'll fail to understand them and their era,plus who is to say that 100-200 years people will be far more advanced socially then we are and they end up looking back on our era and making the same judgements about ours as we make about the early 20th century?

[Troy35216]

i don't know those authors so i can't say. but are they describing the way things were or are they condoning the way things are? like in To Kill a Mockingbird, which we read for school, it uses the N word and has some of the people be way racist. but then some of the people aren't racist at all but they still use words we don't use today like "negro" and "colored" and stuff. but the book is actually anti-racist even tho it describes lots of racist stuff and uses racist words. so i would argue against THAT book being racist but like I said i do not know who those two authors are, i was just using To Kill a Mockingbird as an example to show what i mean about describing versus condoning.

[Lost in the Echo]

Yeah, I agree with you. Times change, the people of today, are not like the people of 100-200 years ago. Change is a part of life. We develop new customs and beliefs.
It's wrong to judge someone, by the way they lived their life, hundreds of years ago. Life was different for them.

[Zenos]

i don't know those authors so i can't say. but are they describing the way things were or are they condoning the way things are? like in To Kill a Mockingbird, which we read for school, it uses the N word and has some of the people be way racist. but then some of the people aren't racist at all but they still use words we don't use today like "negro" and "colored" and stuff. but the book is actually anti-racist even tho it describes lots of racist stuff and uses racist words. so i would argue against THAT book being racist but like I said i do not know who those two authors are, i was just using To Kill a Mockingbird as an example to show what i mean about describing versus condoning.


They are pertty much describing things they way they where .

Yeah, I agree with you. Times change, the people of today, are not like the people of 100-200 years ago. Change is a part of life. We develop new customs and beliefs.
It's wrong to judge someone, by the way they lived their life, hundreds of years ago. Life was different for them.



Sadly today the world has just as much if not more problems,and yet people today will put on the blinders and act like we are totally better off today then back then.

Stop double posting. -StoppingTime.

[workingatperfect]

Well... While I agree it's not right to say that they were all bad people for the way they may have acted, they were still racist. That isn't really a subjective thing.

Edit: I'd like to add that while they weren't exactly bad people because they didn't really know anything else, that doesn't make anything they did right. Like, I think it's ok to judge their actions, but not judge the people because as I said, they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. But the things they did aren't any less bad.

[StoppingTime]

Well... While I agree it's not right to say that they were all bad people for the way they may have acted, they were still racist. That isn't really a subjective thing.

This. They were still racist - that's not a question.
However, why shouldn't we judge them as being racist then? If nobody ever did, then we would still be in that mentality.

[Human]

This. They were still racist - that's not a question.
However, why shouldn't we judge them as being racist then? If nobody ever did, then we would still be in that mentality.

In 100 years, people might think we are all racist, or something like that though. You only call them racist, because you can only have a major viewpoint from these times. Years ago people said computers would never be popular, people these days say interstellar travel, cloning whatever are impossible...

[Zenos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoppingTime
This. They were still racist - that's not a question.
However, why shouldn't we judge them as being racist then? If nobody ever did, then we would still be in that mentality.


In 100 years, people might think we are all racist, or something like that though. You only call them racist, because you can only have a major viewpoint from these times. Years ago people said computers would never be popular, people these days say interstellar travel, cloning whatever are impossible...


Aha!! Human you got it,just what i'm talking about.

You are right we don't have the point of view of people of those days,so to call them something from our point of view down the timeline,is both an in justice to the people from back then as a whole,and it shows we do not understand a thing about the times back then.

This. They were still racist - that's not a question.
However, why shouldn't we judge them as being racist then? If nobody ever did, then we would still be in that mentality.

And thats just an opinion based on the way things are today.

Plus where's your proof on this "If nobody ever did, then we would still be in that mentality."? Thats mere speculation!

[StoppingTime]

It's not speculating to say "if someone didn't push for change, there would be no change."
That's what change is.


And omfg stop double posting.

[Silicate Wielder]

In 100 years, people might think we are all racist, or something like that though. You only call them racist, because you can only have a major viewpoint from these times. Years ago people said computers would never be popular, people these days say interstellar travel, cloning whatever are impossible...
We already do cloning, we can even clone individual organs for use as implants.

But I get your point. we did at one point think cloning was impossible.

Yeah our beliefs change constantly, even if the change is un-noticed. its still there.

[WaffleSingSong]

Well, they were still racist compared to our society, but when talking about there society, they really were on the better side of things. For example, Karl Marx always talked about equality, yet compared to our society he was sexist as hell. Do people still preach his ideas of equality? Yes. Was he discriminatory compared to his time? No. But was he compared to our time? Yes.

[Zenos]

Well, they were still racist compared to our society, but when talking about there society, they really were on the better side of things. For example, Karl Marx always talked about equality, yet compared to our society he was sexist as hell. Do people still preach his ideas of equality? Yes. Was he discriminatory compared to his time? No. But was he compared to our time? Yes.


The problem is that every generation and the people of every era thinks theirs is sooo much better then that of the ones that came before them.

I have studied enough about the early 20th century to realize in comparaison to ours this.

What we deem racism was something that wasn't talked about because it wasn't deemed proper to discuss,and the few who where racist ran the show because they had the pull.Where as now everyone thats not racist talks about racism and hiw bad and wrong it is,but those who are racist keep quite off line far these reasons:


1) It's not popular to formulate you own opinions when society now stands up and declares said opinions wrong!


2) the working adult can face loss of employment for enspousing racist views.

2) the teen can face suspension,or expulsion for holding racist views.

Someone told me that few people today are racist,no they are just smart and keep their views to themselves due to society.

If you could take a census of the amonut of people who held racist views as compared to those who where nonracist and no one know who signed them,we'd probably be shocked at the amount racists there still are.


Also people look back at people from the past and act sooo much better then them all the while ignoring the wrongs and injustices of our times,and brushing off the fact 100 years from now we'll be seen in the same light as most of us see people from the 1920's.

It's a fact of life every generation things it's better the the those before,and everyone thinks the era they are living in is better and more enlightened then that of 100 years before.

It's not speculating to say "if someone didn't push for change, there would be no change."
That's what change is.


And omfg stop double posting.

1) I am not purposly double posting,my mouse is messed up.

2)Thats a bit of a change there from This. "They were still racist - that's not a question.
However, why shouldn't we judge them as being racist then?"


Are you saying you are infavor now of actually trying to learn about the era instead of just blindly saying "Oh they where racists?"

I did not mean to double post I am having problems with my mouse and should have a new one by this weekend.

Problems or not, stop double posting. --Lyra

[workingatperfect]

First of all, I don't see what your mouse has to do with double posting... You're capable of clicking a button, right? I assume so, since you're posting and what not. He means a new post for each quote instead of using that convenient button to the side of posts that says multi. Also, proper grammar would be nice. I can't make sense of half the stuff you say. "...realize in comparison to ours this." What?

They were racists. I don't understand you can deny that.

Racist:
"a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others."
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Did people back then belief that white people were superior to other races? Yes. So they were racists. Just because they didn't think there was anything wrong with it, and they didn't have a term for it or talk about it, doesn't mean they weren't.

And to support StoppingTime when he said that if no one calls for a change, there won't be any change, um, I'm pretty sure that's common sense. Slavery wouldn't have ended if no one EVER stood up and said that it was wrong. That kind of a change happens by someone pointing out that something is wrong, and needs to be done.
If there's a default in a phone that's being manufactured, and no one complains about, what do you think will happen? Say it's a key that doesn't work, or something. No one ever mentions that the key is broken... It's never going to get fixed because the company won't know that anything is wrong. In order for them to fix it, someone has to say "Hey, there's something wrong with these phones."

[Zenos]

First of all, I don't see what your mouse has to do with double posting... You're capable of clicking a button, right? I assume so, since you're posting and what not. He means a new post for each quote instead of using that convenient button to the side of posts that says multi. Also, proper grammar would be nice. I can't make sense of half the stuff you say. "...realize in comparison to ours this." What?

They were racists. I don't understand you can deny that.

Racist:
"a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others."
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Did people back then belief that white people were superior to other races? Yes. So they were racists. Just because they didn't think there was anything wrong with it, and they didn't have a term for it or talk about it, doesn't mean they weren't.

And to support StoppingTime when he said that if no one calls for a change, there won't be any change, um, I'm pretty sure that's common sense. Slavery wouldn't have ended if no one EVER stood up and said that it was wrong. That kind of a change happens by someone pointing out that something is wrong, and needs to be done.
If there's a default in a phone that's being manufactured, and no one complains about, what do you think will happen? Say it's a key that doesn't work, or something. No one ever mentions that the key is broken... It's never going to get fixed because the company won't know that anything is wrong. In order for them to fix it, someone has to say "Hey, there's something wrong with these phones."


Again you are judging people by OUR standards!

You could revesre that and by their standards they'd say people are weak lazy do nothings.

Plus the exact way you judge the people of the past is the EXACT way WE will be viewed 100 years from now.

[workingatperfect]

I've noticed you have this tendency to take facts as opinions. why is that? Why can you not take something for what it is even if it goes against what you think is right?

Racism is objective. They thought they were better than other races. That makes them racist. The end. I don't understand how anyone could possibly argue with that.

As I already said, you can't judge them as bad people, because by their standards, they weren't doing anything wrong. They didn't know any better really. But you can't seriously tell me that having slaves wasn't racist.

[Zenos]

I've noticed you have this tendency to take facts as opinions. why is that? Why can you not take something for what it is even if it goes against what you think is right?

Racism is objective. They thought they were better than other races. That makes them racist. The end. I don't understand how anyone could possibly argue with that.

As I already said, you can't judge them as bad people, because by their standards, they weren't doing anything wrong. They didn't know any better really. But you can't seriously tell me that having slaves wasn't racist.

Slaves!:rolleyes: Oh brother here we go! trot out the slavery equals racism card!

You do relaize that every race has had slavery,that it was blacks who first sold blacks to other races.

And that Euopean slavery (i.E. Serfdom) persisted in the Austrian Empire till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861 which means this form of slavery only truly ended in Europe in the 19th century.

Hmm seems to me like the bible condones slavery,and also just because someone practices slavery does not make them racist,wrong yes but that does not automatically mean they are cold blooded,beedy eyed racists. Also little known and well denied is that fact that before and during the American Civil war there where free blacks in the south,and a lot of them owned black slaves.

I mean after all are you aware of the Whites that where held as slaves in North Africa ,just before the nations of Europe orginized themselves and became explorers,and colonial powers? Or how about the fact Arabs wa sback then also had whites and even blacks as slaves?

That doesn't mean they where racist,but the moment we hear of whites owning slaves,we are automatically told they owned them due to them being racist,when in fact they used the bible's meantion of slave ownership as justification for owning slaves.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Of course this guy... Ugh....
Lets start this with the thesis: Judging is wrong
Lets end with a quote

Never judge a book by its cover.

[workingatperfect]

So because all races have thought they they could treat another race like animals, that makes it ok? No. Anyone who thinks that they can own someone because of their races is racist.

I am indeed aware that Europeans have also been slaves.

But here's the thing, no matter who's doing it, it's still racist. That's what you aren't getting. Racism is when any race think that they're superior to another race. Thinking that you can buy and own someone of another race is basically saying that they're less human than you. Guess what.... that's racist! No matter who the hell is doing it. Hell, I know a lot of black people who are a hell of a lot more racist than any white person I've met. Any one can be racist. Slavery, when imposed upon a specific race or races, is racist.

You're say having slaves doesn't make someone racist? Please, tell me why, because I'm dying to hear why thinking that you can own a person against their will isn't essentially saying that you're better than them.

[Zenos]

So because all races have thought they they could treat another race like animals, that makes it ok? No. Anyone who thinks that they can own someone because of their races is racist.

I am indeed aware that Europeans have also been slaves.

But here's the thing, no matter who's doing it, it's still racist. That's what you aren't getting. Racism is when any race think that they're superior to another race. Thinking that you can buy and own someone of another race is basically saying that they're less human than you. Guess what.... that's racist! No matter who the hell is doing it. Hell, I know a lot of black people who are a hell of a lot more racist than any white person I've met. Any one can be racist. Slavery, when imposed upon a specific race or races, is racist.

You're say having slaves doesn't make someone racist? Please, tell me why, because I'm dying to hear why thinking that you can own a person against their will isn't essentially saying that you're better than them.


It doesn make a person racist though,there are usually cultural and religious reasons backing the practice of slavery( i.e. they pullout their good book to jsutify it),but you'll never accept that because like most people you see it as strictly connected with racism and racism alone

[StoppingTime]

It doesn make a person racist though,there are usually cultural and religious reasons backing the practice of slavery( i.e. they pullout their good book to jsutify it),but you'll never accept that because like most people you see it as strictly connected with racism and racism alone


It doesn't matter what text told them to do it. It's still racist. Treating a race in an inferior manner is racist.
Here's another example:

The Bible treats women inferior to men. That is sexist. If someone were to do that today, it would also be sexist. It doesn't matter what tells them to do it.

Or better yet: You're told to murder someone, and you do. It's still murder even though someone else told you to do it.

[Zenos]

It doesn't matter what text told them to do it. It's still racist. Treating a race in an inferior manner is racist.
Here's another example:

The Bible treats women inferior to men. That is sexist. If someone were to do that today, it would also be sexist. It doesn't matter what tells them to do it.

Or better yet: You're told to murder someone, and you do. It's still murder even though someone else told you to do it.



Man all you can see is the racist card,despite the fact there might be cultural or religious reasons instead of race related reasons.

My dad is right our generation is really brainwashed by the PC brigade to the point most of us can not think outside the it's bad so it must have been racism box!

[StoppingTime]

Man all you can see is the racist card,despite the fact there might be cultural or religious reasons instead of race related reasons.

My dad is right our generation is really brainwashed by the PC brigade to the point most of us can not think outside the it's bad so it must have been racism box!


It doesn't matter if they think it's okay because a cultural reason. Treating a race, or hell, anyone, as if they are less of a human than you is inexcusable. It doesn't matter if that's been a tradition forever, if it's in the Bible, whatever.


You basically just said: Well if another source (i.e. the Bible) says slavery is okay, then we can't say anything bad because it's a cultural reason.

[workingatperfect]

It doesn make a person racist though,there are usually cultural and religious reasons backing the practice of slavery( i.e. they pullout their good book to jsutify it),but you'll never accept that because like most people you see it as strictly connected with racism and racism alone

It's not solely racism, no. It's discrimination, because you could be enslaving only women, or only people of a certain age, sexuality, culture, hair type. No matter the case, it's a form of discrimination.

Man all you can see is the racist card,despite the fact there might be cultural or religious reasons instead of race related reasons.

But it's their culture or religion telling them that they're superior to whoever the hell it is they're enslaving. It isn't always racism, but it's always discrimination.

[Zenos]

It's not solely racism, no. It's discrimination, because you could be enslaving only women, or only people of a certain age, sexuality, culture, hair type. No matter the case, it's a form of discrimination.



But it's their culture or religion telling them that they're superior to whoever the hell it is they're enslaving. It isn't always racism, but it's always discrimination.



True discrimination isn't always linked to race.

For example a freind of mine thats black will flat out tell the truth he discriminates against a Native american guy I know not based on race but just on the fact he hates the guy.And it's just an instintive,guys never done me wrong but I hate him none the less thing.

It doesn't matter if they think it's okay because a cultural reason. Treating a race, or hell, anyone, as if they are less of a human than you is inexcusable. It doesn't matter if that's been a tradition forever, if it's in the Bible, whatever.


You basically just said: Well if another source (i.e. the Bible) says slavery is okay, then we can't say anything bad because it's a cultural reason.



No I did not basically say that,I simply ackowledged that some people do use things other then race as reason to treat others like crap.

Now how is accepting that as a fact condoning it?

Hmm it;s not condoning it,it's just pointingout a fact and yet you act like my pointing out a fact as actually condoning it,and thats what you accused me of!

Sorry i'm not nor ever shall be PC,if theres other reasons besides the commonly shouted reason something good or bad can happen I will be the first to point it out,no matter how many people decide that means i;m condoning an action despite the fact i'm now.

fact of life :Face it everything bad that happened in the past is not due to racism,just as not everything that's bad is caused by satan and demons(for those who believe in him),sometimes bad things happen for other reasons ,same with good things!

[workingatperfect]

That's not discrimination then. That's just not liking someone.

"Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category."

However, we've gotten a bit off topic here. The main point I was trying to make a few posts ago was that Americans thought they were superior to other races. That is a fact, is it not? And I don't just mean black people. Another prime example would be native americans. They thought that they could come in and just take land from the Native Americans because they were "savages." Tell me how that isn't racist. Just because it was acceptable back then doesn't change was it is.

And you keep saying that if someone does something because of culture or religion, it's not racist. But basically, it's their culture/religion telling them to be racist. Or whatever it may be. Sexist, ageist, etc.

[Zenos]

That's not discrimination then. That's just not liking someone.

"Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category."

However, we've gotten a bit off topic here. The main point I was trying to make a few posts ago was that Americans thought they were superior to other races. That is a fact, is it not? And I don't just mean black people. Another prime example would be native americans. They thought that they could come in and just take land from the Native Americans because they were "savages." Tell me how that isn't racist. Just because it was acceptable back then doesn't change was it is.

And you keep saying that if someone does something because of culture or religion, it's not racist. But basically, it's their culture/religion telling them to be racist. Or whatever it may be. Sexist, ageist, etc.


Look dude every race and ethnic group has had their lands taken from them and been pushed aside.And I doubt it was all based on race,resources and such do play a factor.Like I said bad things happen for various reasons,just as good things happen for various reasons.

Also I'm Celtic so I can scream racism at the Romans,the Norse,the Saxons,the Normons,the English,hells bells even the Church and each of these groups decendants,but I don't and yet when it comes to Americans we get labeled eternally racist no matter how much our society improves.

[workingatperfect]

I was aiming more for the savage part actually. Clearly, calling another group of people savage is racist or, actually, it's ethnocentric, because it's criticizing their culture. But either way, that's what I was going for.

But about the land thing. Say we're in class and I come up to you and take your pencil so that I can use. I don't ask or give it back to you, I just take it for no reason. But, there is a reason. It's because, even if it's subconscious, I think I'm better than you. I think that I'm more important, therefore my need for the pencil outweighs yours.

That's what they're doing when they take land from another group of people. Whether it be based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or whatever, they're doing it because their needs are more important than the other group. The pencil thing, it could be for any reason. But it will always break down to this "I'm more important."