Learned a new word today

[L Verge]

I have spent so many years trying to persuade people to judge people according to the social and cultural times in which they lived. Today, I learned that there is a word for that type of thinking:

"Presentism" signifies judging historical figures by contemporary standards.

I learned this from the New York Times, which today carried an opinion that Robert E. Lee's name should be removed from schools, roads, public buildings, etc.

[Wild Bill]

This is an old concept taught, or used to be, in all history classes. When Macko asked me such a question way ten years ago, after I delivered The Anakin Skywalker speech,I refused to answer it because he was trying to make an historical account of historians opinions of Lincoln apply to current politics.

[BettyO]

Quote:I learned this from the New York Times, which today carried an opinion that Robert E. Lee's name should be removed from schools, roads, public buildings, etc.

We're treading on dangerous ground here, folks, IMO..... yes, let's just whitewash all history and pretend that NONE of this ever happened; that none of these people ever existed....how ridiculous can you get? We'll just turn everything into "fantasy land." We'll burn and ban Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind and anything else stamped "Southern"....

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I've had about enough of this....

[L Verge]

(06-26-2015 09:15 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  This is an old concept taught, or used to be, in all history classes. When Macko asked me such a question way ten years ago, after I delivered The Anakin Skywalker speech,I refused to answer it because he was trying to make an historical account of historians opinions of Lincoln apply to current politics.

I know that the concept is as old as the hills, but have you ever heard the exact term "presentism" used before to describe people who are still judging by their modern concepts vs. historical technique?

I do realize that it is much easier for the average person to voice their opinions based on their experiences in our "modern" world, but it is not fair to judge those of a different time by our experiences. My mother and father had much different views from their parents - and I have different views than my parents (mainly because modern society has forced new things on me).

---

(06-26-2015 09:53 AM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:I learned this from the New York Times, which today carried an opinion that Robert E. Lee's name should be removed from schools, roads, public buildings, etc.

We're treading on dangerous ground here, folks, IMO..... yes, let's just whitewash all history and pretend that NONE of this ever happened; that none of these people ever existed....how ridiculous can you get? We'll just turn everything into "fantasy land." We'll burn and ban Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind and anything else stamped "Southern"....

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I've had about enough of this....

My grandson called to tell me that Apple has just announced that they will not carry anything about the flag that is offensive or mean spirited, BUT they will continue to use the image and its background in ways that are historical or educational.

[Juan Marrero]

GWTW will not be burned, except perhaps by a book purchaser who is a pyromaniac. but Margaret Mitchell will not be on the $10 bill.

[L Verge]

(06-26-2015 11:51 AM)Juan Marrero Wrote:  GWTW will not be burned, except perhaps by a book purchaser who is a pyromaniac. but Margaret Mitchell will not be on the $10 bill.

I know you are posting with tongue in cheek, Juan; but who would have thought that Huckleberry Finn would be banned from school libraries, etc.?

[Juan Marrero]

(06-26-2015 11:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:51 AM)Juan Marrero Wrote:  GWTW will not be burned, except perhaps by a book purchaser who is a pyromaniac. but Margaret Mitchell will not be on the $10 bill.

I know you are posting with tongue in cheek, Juan; but who would have thought that Huckleberry Finn would be banned from school libraries, etc.?

Yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek and banning HF is cultural vandalism.

But I think there are times when "little things" get in the way of a great story. On Pentecost Sunday, I hate it when we are told that the Apostles hid away "for fear of the Jews." More so, in Matthew when the "Jews" agree to have Christ's blood on then and their children. It would save a lot of trouble if "people" were inserted for "Jews" even at this late date and that was what the First Century writer would have meant any way because most people out there were Jews. It would be like saying that I am afraid of the North Carolinians instead of the folks with criminal records.

Back to GWTW, if I were MM's wealthy heirs (but never the government directly or indirectly), I would have no problem with releasing an edition of the book that, for example, did not refer to Mammy's "gorilla" like arms. That little gem is not intrinsic in any way to a terrific story and actually diminishes it. It's important to get ahead of the curve on things like that. A little light editing would make the medicine go down and show good will. By the way, any changes to any text should be admitted and explained. People would always have the opportunity to buy the original version if they chose.

GWTW is safe in the same way that "Merchant of Venice" is. GWTW is part of the canon of important Western literature. It will survive political correctness. But that doesn't mean it's a holy book. In fact there are things in the Holy Book, supra, that God should have worded differently! Again, tongue in cheek.

[L Verge]

Your comment about GWTW even being considered a holy book is something I have never heard of or thought of before! I must be naive, but frankly such a thought is ludicrous to me. I know you are saying it with tongue in cheek, but could others really think of it along those lines? I know many people who have the Moonlight and Magnolias nostalgia regarding the Lost Cause, but not to the point where they would consider GWTW sacred.

Now I'm starting to worry about other classics done by Southern-inspired writers...

[Juan Marrero]

(06-26-2015 12:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Your comment about GWTW even being considered a holy book is something I have never heard of or thought of before! I must be naive, but frankly such a thought is ludicrous to me. I know you are saying it with tongue in cheek, but could others really think of it along those lines? I know many people who have the Moonlight and Magnolias nostalgia regarding the Lost Cause, but not to the point where they would consider GWTW sacred.

Now I'm starting to worry about other classics done by Southern-inspired writers...

My explicit point was that it is not a sacred test, obviously, and that moreover even sacred writings have within them statements that make one wish that the original writers, however divinely inspired, had used other terminology.

GWTW is a very well-plotted, clearly written romance that owes much to Thackery's "Vanity Fair." The book is at most casually about race and slavery. It is intrinsically about survival and loving at cross-purposes.

My point is that if there are incidental offensive adjectives (such as the gorilla-like reference) that could be deleted from GWTW without hurting the book and making it much less a potential target. A prudential decision to lightly edit, while we have a First Amendment, could only and should only be made by those who own the copyright.

Reminds me of Lincoln's dictum on litigation, something about giving in on the small things in order to hold on to the essential. That may or may not apply to literature, but just an inchoate, off-the-cuff thought on the subject of whether GWTW is safe from political correctness. To try to avoid a flag-like controversy, what may be done to insulate GWTW from PC if anything?

I enjoyed the book and movie very much despite Scarlett O'Hara expressing reluctance to dance with Abe Lincoln himself.

[My Name Is Kate]

Huckleberry Finn is banned from libraries (where have I been...)? That is an anti-slavery, anti-racist book. Mark Twain intentionally wrote it with an ironic tone to give it more power and make a greater impact on the reader. He hated slavery.

Is it because of the use of the n-word? Take that word out, and its impact is greatly diminished, IMO.

IMO, no books should be revised, however "slightly", without the author's permission, and when those authors are dead and can't be consulted, leave their books as is. Don't read them if you are easily offended.

After all, women (of all colors) are bombarded with the billions-of-dollars porn industry that stares us in the face in magazines, on TV, in movies, on the internet, and some of these same people who are so PC in other areas, think nothing of any of that, and many of them actually indulge in it. Porn exists because that is what the masses want. What good would it do to ban it? That would go over about as well as Prohibition did.

[Juan Marrero]

[quote='My Name Is Kate' pid='48980' dateline='1435356198']
Huckleberry Finn is banned from libraries (where have I been...)? That is an anti-slavery, anti-racist book. Mark Twain intentionally wrote it with an ironic tone to give it more power and make a greater impact on the reader. He hated slavery.

Is it because of the use of the n-word? Take that word out, and its impact is greatly diminished, IMO.

I wonder if banning HF has more to say about today's students than the book itself. There are a lot of schools with discipline problems and having to explain the context of the "n" word to a group of teenagers (regardless of race) might be just be too much bother for over-burdened teachers.

Every child in America knows that the "n" word will get you in more trouble than any other and it might well be confusing to discern when it is literature and when it is hate.

The class focus might end up being all on the "n" word and very little about the book. Think about it being the "f" word instead of the "n", what school would want it on the curriculum, especially dealing with irate parents. Educators, like everyone else, don't want to buy trouble and may figure that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is safer than HF and may accomplish the same reading goal.

Ridiculously, my daughter's eighth grade teacher got grief from several parents when it was announced that the kids would put on an abbreviated "Romeo and Juliet". One dad practically screamed that on no condition would his daughter kiss a boy on stage (even if it was a chaste kiss to a dead Romeo). Next year's choice is likely to be something very anodyne--maybe "Tela-tubies go shopping." Better to put the audience to sleep than deal with the angry parent.

Reminds of something that allegedly Stalin said about dealing with people: "lots of people, lots of problems; a few people, a few problems; no people, no problems." He had a dry wit, I suppose.

[MaddieM]

When I was writing my novel, The Open Doorway, I had a real struggle at times getting my mindset back 150 years. My main character comes from this century, so we can experience the Civil War and that time period through her eyes and through her struggles with it. But I still had to remember that societal etiquette and thought processes were sometimes a million miles away from how we are now. I also had to try not to gloss over certain historical incidences, such as Powell's beating up of the maid, Annie Ward, and the Burning Raid of Loudoun Valley. There was one section where we see the main character at Abraham Lincoln's birthday bash, where she witnesses these Victorian ladies and gentleman behaving like a particularly voracious mob at an 18 to 30 beanfeast! She's aghast that they can behave that way, and yet wouldn't be seen dead in the street without a hat or bonnet. And yet also, the world was not so changed in other aspects...particularly that of human nature. I learned so much writing that book. So much about that period, the war, the society etc, and all the little human tragedies and miracles inbetween.

---

(06-26-2015 08:21 PM)Juan Marrero Wrote:  [quote='My Name Is Kate' pid='48980' dateline='1435356198']
Huckleberry Finn is banned from libraries (where have I been...)? That is an anti-slavery, anti-racist book. Mark Twain intentionally wrote it with an ironic tone to give it more power and make a greater impact on the reader. He hated slavery.

Is it because of the use of the n-word? Take that word out, and its impact is greatly diminished, IMO.

I wonder if banning HF has more to say about today's students than the book itself. There are a lot of schools with discipline problems and having to explain the context of the "n" word to a group of teenagers (regardless of race) might be just be too much bother for over-burdened teachers.

Every child in America knows that the "n" word will get you in more trouble than any other and it might well be confusing to discern when it is literature and when it is hate.

The class focus might end up being all on the "n" word and very little about the book. Think about it being the "f" word instead of the "n", what school would want it on the curriculum, especially dealing with irate parents. Educators, like everyone else, don't want to buy trouble and may figure that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is safer than HF and may accomplish the same reading goal.

Ridiculously, my daughter's eighth grade teacher got grief from several parents when it was announced that the kids would put on an abbreviated "Romeo and Juliet". One dad practically screamed that on no condition would his daughter kiss a boy on stage (even if it was a chaste kiss to a dead Romeo). Next year's choice is likely to be something very anodyne--maybe "Tela-tubies go shopping." Better to put the audience to sleep than deal with the angry parent.

Reminds of something that allegedly Stalin said about dealing with people: "lots of people, lots of problems; a few people, a few problems; no people, no problems." He had a dry wit, I suppose.

I struggled with using the N word in my novel, but I did, because it was part and parcel of the language at that time. I used it very sparingly, but with enough emphasis to get the point across.