![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sasha_featherSaving my tweets on this as I think it through.
The "Man of his time" argument assumes that everyone in that time period felt the same way. Erases nuance and difference.
It also erases experiences of dissents and marginalized people. Those people existed even if history has forgotten them. (For example: I learned from Rachel Maddow tonight that Vince Lombardi was pro-gay and had a gay brother. He was a famous football coach that lived from 1913-1970).
Me and my friends don't hold the prevailing views of mainstream society. I don't think of us as "products of our time."
This argument also assumes that society progresses forward thru time, that people in the past were worse. Which is not true. (History does not go forward in a upward line. It's more like a sine wave maybe.)
We are all influenced by our time and society, but we can all think critically and listen to our consciences re right and wrong.
Saying that someone was "a product of their time" is usually just apologism for their bad behaviors.
If something is wrong today, it was wrong 100 years ago. (Ethical behaviors, possibly, have some standards across societies and times, even if morals are relative. Have to think on this more.)
Just because people in power endorsed it, doesn't make it OK for everyone else in society to do so.
The "Man of his time" argument assumes that everyone in that time period felt the same way. Erases nuance and difference.
It also erases experiences of dissents and marginalized people. Those people existed even if history has forgotten them. (For example: I learned from Rachel Maddow tonight that Vince Lombardi was pro-gay and had a gay brother. He was a famous football coach that lived from 1913-1970).
Me and my friends don't hold the prevailing views of mainstream society. I don't think of us as "products of our time."
This argument also assumes that society progresses forward thru time, that people in the past were worse. Which is not true. (History does not go forward in a upward line. It's more like a sine wave maybe.)
We are all influenced by our time and society, but we can all think critically and listen to our consciences re right and wrong.
Saying that someone was "a product of their time" is usually just apologism for their bad behaviors.
If something is wrong today, it was wrong 100 years ago. (Ethical behaviors, possibly, have some standards across societies and times, even if morals are relative. Have to think on this more.)
Just because people in power endorsed it, doesn't make it OK for everyone else in society to do so.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-06 02:18 pm (UTC)I have had this debate more than once as well. You cannot say it is 'alright' for someone to be racist or violent because they were a 'product of their time'. How then do you explain that only a small percent of the population 'owned slaves' even at the height of slavery? It was just because people 'couldn't afford it' - it was because there were people opposed to the practice since antiquity. How about 'native civilizations' and cultures that were matriarchal versus so many that were patriarchal? What about incest and rape and murder? Excuses made by 'those in power' do not excuse the attitudes and behaviors, even if they help us to understand them. While it's hard to say 'I'd always think/feel this way' it is equally hard to say 'Oh, they are a product of their time' and have it sit well.
I don't say we condemn everyone and anyone who ever made a mistake or had a biased or ignorant viewpoint - but you cannot 'excuse' them as if it was completely 'ok' either.
...maybe? *>.<* This is a tricky debate sometimes. *sigh*