I was listening to Malcolm Gladwell's podcast, "Revisionist History," this morning. The episode is called "Generous Orthodoxy." In it, Gladwell talks about a recent situation at Princeton University. Students have been protesting the use of Woodrow Wilson's name in connection with the University, specifically as the title of the School of Public and International Affairs, because of the racist ideals that he held.
I had not heard about these happenings at Princeton until today, but the issue brought some poignant questions to my mind. What are we to make of the past? How do we balance an appreciation of the sacrifices made by our forbears with a healthy criticism of their mistakes? Do we suspend all honor bestowed upon great contributors of the past when we find out about troubling beliefs or ideals that they held?
I don't believe we should ignore such troubling aspects of their character, but neither should we let those aspects completely overshadow the good that came as a result of their efforts. We should also remember that troubling beliefs and ideals are usually caused by ignorance. A classic example that comes to mind is the conventional wisdom hundreds of years ago that the world was flat.
If we could transport ourselves one or two hundred years into the future and look back at this time, what would we see? How would we view the conventional wisdom, the widely held beliefs and ideals of our day? How many of those beliefs and ideals would be appalling to future generations?
I believe we often judge past generations unfairly, and such unfair judgment, like many troubling aspects of the past, is the product of ignorance or misinformation. Let's not pretend like we're so much wiser and better than they were. The progress we've made has come because of them. We should recognize and appreciate that, and learn from their mistakes.
I think what we should honor is relative goodness. In other words, based on the standards of the time, did the person meaningfully move society and standards forwards or backwards? I think there is a difference between venerating a Calhoun figure, who actively promoted a racist ideology that was central to his legacy, and a Wilsonian figure who, though promoting racism, also (arguably) achieved other good things for the world. In other words, ask whether the figure was taking things in the right direction, not whether he had already arrived at the correct final destination.
ReplyDeleteI like that, Bill. I think that's a good way to look at it. We can forgive them some mistakes if we can argue that the good they did, in the long run, outweighs the bad. A good example would be Martin Luther. From what I understand, he was very anti-semitic. Despite that flaw, we honor him as one of the great reformers who played an important role in creating the society of free religion we enjoy today.
DeleteReally, really good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bill. I have made some stupid mistakes in my life, but I think overall I'm a relatively good person. I meet people who have radical ideas that I think are stupid, but that doesn't mean I think the person is stupid, just the idea. To put things into perspective, I do believe it is the overall goodness and the legacy we leave for generations to come that is important. Did we move the work forward? Are we doing the best we can with the knowledge we have?
ReplyDelete