Judging historical people on today's social standards. . .

[Christine]

Help. My daughter is writing a paper in her Music History class (she is a music therapy major) and has been given this topic: should we still listen to, perform, and appreciate music from classical composers who by today's standards were flawed individuals, who may have done/said/believed 'awful' things?

I shared with her the comments of Coby Treadyway which Laurie shared last week (The Historian's World). I know most of you are passionate about 'revisionist' history, and acknowledge the danger of throwing away our vital links to history because our common acceptance of social standards has evolved (which is what civilization is all about, right?).

So apparently this isn't happening only in historical circles, but in music as well. How do we acknowledge and celebrate that deeply flawed individuals (like all of us) can somehow still create beautiful works of art which move us and contribute to the fabric of our lives, (or made essential contributions to the history of our nation and world) without seeming to embrace their distasteful (to us today) words and actions?

Would LOVE your thoughts, ideas, and especially links to articles and commentaries about these controversies (I realize most will be about historical figures, but I think she can use it to link back to the thesis of the paper about musicians).

Thanks!!!

[AussieMick]

I believe that 'beautiful works of art which move us and contribute to the fabric of our lives' exist in their own right. If the person who created them was flawed or corrupt or in any way despicable by our own standards then we can criticise their actions in that regard. But to ignore/criticise a great work of art because the author was fallible or weak or immoral (by the standards of the time or our own standards) in their daily life is nonsensical.

What type of a person was William Shakespeare? Was he anti-semitic? A misogynist? Was he faithful to his wife? Did he murder anybody? Did he plagiarize any works? We cannot be certain. Obviously though there are some historical figures who we know were immoral, or had (what most people would consider) twisted ideals, or committed criminal acts whilst also producing great works of art.

Richard Wagner 'wrote a violently antisemitic booklet in the 1850s called Das Judebthum in die Musik (Judaism in Music) insisting the Jews poisoned public taste in the arts. He founded the Bayreuth festival, which in the 1930s and 1940s was used by the Nazi party as a propaganda tool against the Jews.'
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/musReich.htm

He also composed Der Ring des Nibelungen.

One of Britain's greatest poets was John Milton (Paradise Lost,"When I Consider How My Light is Spent" ). But he was a strong defender of Oliver Cromwell (who massacred many Irish) and held strong anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic views (IMO).

Charles Dickens has been criticised for his views on slavery and genocide ( Christopher Hitchens, The Dark Side of Dickens)

[RJNorton]

Christine, your post made me think of this quote from author David Mearns:

Mearns wrote of Abraham Lincoln, "If he belongs to the ages it is because he belonged to his own age, his own fellows, his own environment ... if we would honor him, recognize and understand him we must return to his [age]."

[Gene C]

(10-07-2019 08:55 PM)Christine Wrote:  Help. My daughter is writing a paper in her Music History class (she is a music therapy major) and has been given this topic: should we still listen to, perform, and appreciate music from classical composers who by today's standards were flawed individuals, who may have done/said/believed 'awful' things?

I don't know many individuals who are not flawed. We all are to some extent.
There would not be much music to listen to if we rejected the music from flawed individuals. Who gets to determine what flaws cause rejection?

If she has time, and hasn't already, the recent PBS special on country music tells about a few "flawed" individuals who wrote some very good music. Many suffered from addiction to drugs and alcohol. There are several "Christian songs" which talk about being caught up in sin (serious flaws). Amazing Grace comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG0vH4WYChQ
The comments to the song are interesting, and may help your daughter with her paper, how the music and words from a flawed individual helped them.
Here is a 14 minute video, The Story Behind the Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8AHHduTM0

Good Luck

[Rob Wick]

Quote:Who gets to determine what flaws cause rejection?

Each generation writes its own history based on its own experiences. The same is true for people today as it was for James Randall or Ida Tarbell after World War I. What one generation sees as trying to erase history, the next sees it as trying to tell the entire truth about it. The problem with many of the "flawed" individuals of the past is that those "flaws" are often downplayed or completely ignored. Henry Ford was a virulent Anti-Semite who printed the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in the Dearborn Independent. In several articles, Tarbell praised his business acumen, yet never discussed his viewpoint on Jews. That would lead one to ask "did she accept those views?" The answer is no. I found a newspaper ad that Tarbell signed that was supportive of Jews. Would I have preferred that she come out strongly against Ford for his viewpoint? Yes, I would have.

Tarbell decided to compartmentalize things, which might have worked for her, but was a flawed judgment in its own right. It's not enough to say "everybody did it" back then, because everybody didn't do it. When Randall wrote his "The Blundering Generation" paper in which he said slavery wasn't enough of a factor in precipitating the Civil War, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., objected. In a paper I presented to the Conference on Illinois History in 2011, I wrote the following:

Schlesinger argued that the revisionists—that all historians for that matter—were obliged to pronounce moral judgments on actions that ran counter to the democratic ideals that America’s founding documents pronounced, although he warned that that obligation was no license for forgetting that individuals were prisoners of their own times and societal pressures. In Schlesinger’s view, the error of the revisionists was to bend over so far backward to avoid easy and smug moral judgments on historical actors that they renounced any need to consider moral issues in history at all.
In his conclusion, Schlesinger demanded an acknowledgement that every historian “imports his own set of moral judgments into the writing of history by the very process of interpretation….” Whereas Randall had no problem in expressing what Schlesinger termed his “moral feeling” that the abolitionist’s attitude was “unctuous” and “intolerant” Randall (in Schlesinger’s reading) could not express any moral feeling about the cause of fighting to free the bondsman. It was a severe indictment indeed.
Although Schlesinger was not questioning Randall’s personal integrity, he did argue that anyone claiming to understand what he termed “the great conflicts of history” must acknowledge that there are some issues worth the shedding of blood, and to fail to accept that slavery was one of those issues is a failure either to acknowledge or to understand that slavery was “a betrayal of the basic values of our Christian and democratic tradition.” Like a logjam, a great moral wrong such as slavery sometimes required violence and force to expel it permanently from our society.

Mike, I found it interesting that you mentioned Wagner. In college, I wrote a paper on Cultural Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany, focusing on both Wagner and Heinrich Von Treitschke, who wrote "The Jews are Our Misfortune." I was a deep admirer of Wagner's music (During the writing of my paper, I listened to the entire Ring cycle, which took up about 20 or so albums, if I remember correctly. I never want to hear it again). Yet after reading "Jewishness in Music" I never saw Wagner the same way again. I still listen to his music, but I also realize that when I talk about him, it is incumbent upon me to mention his Anti-Semitism.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

I recently used a quote from someone that I can't remember: "There is a fine line between genius and insanity." I used it at the Surratt House program this past Saturday on the history of St. Elizabeths Hospital (another packed room). Two members of the audience had just given personal accounts of dealings with the institution. One man had been a therapist there during the late-1900s and spoke of the rare talents that so many of the seriously ill patients had hidden beneath their mental illnesses.

A woman told the story of her father, who was a patient in the hospital for over twenty years before being released. He was a marvelous musician and went immediately to New York, where he worked with many of the leading jazz artists of the 1950s and 60s. In later years, he returned as a musical therapist at St. E's.

I wish that I had gotten the names of these two people, but the stories they shared should prove a vital point that there is good in everyone and that circumstances beyond their control often hide that good from the world. More importantly, who in this modern world has the right to judge other people for their transgressions -- unless their sins are very harmful and unacceptable to the good of society.

[Gene C]

(10-08-2019 09:33 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I recently used a quote from someone that I can't remember: "There is a fine line between genius and insanity."

Not to mention anyone's name, but some of us on the forum cross over back and forth that fine line on an irregular basis.
Personally, Fido and I tend to stray over on the genius side most of the time.

[ELCore]

Over the summer, I re-read Alas, Babylon, a classic of "apocalyptic" or "post-apocalyptic" fiction. I had read it at least once or twice back in the 1970s, but hadn't read it since. I enjoyed it this time as much as I had in my earlier readings.

I posted a review on goodreads.com, noticing that people fault the book for reflecting the mores of that time and place. (It was published in 1958, and set in contemporary Florida.) Among those mores are different roles for men and women, and somewhat circumspect relations between the races. I concluded my review this way:

Quote:P.S. Some "reviewers" seem to think a book written about a certain place and time should not reflect the mores of the people of that place and time. I don't have an adequate vocabulary to describe how stupid such an attitude is.

[L Verge]

(10-10-2019 05:36 PM)ELCore Wrote:  Over the summer, I re-read Alas, Babylon, a classic of "apocalyptic" or "post-apocalyptic" fiction. I had read it at least once or twice back in the 1970s, but hadn't read it since. I enjoyed it this time as much as I had in my earlier readings.

I posted a review on goodreads.com, noticing that people fault the book for reflecting the mores of that time and place. (It was published in 1958, and set in contemporary Florida.) Among those mores are different roles for men and women, and somewhat circumspect relations between the races. I concluded my review this way:

Quote:P.S. Some "reviewers" seem to think a book written about a certain place and time should not reflect the mores of the people of that place and time. I don't have an adequate vocabulary to describe how stupid such an attitude is.

Great review comment. Unfortunately, it shows the lack of understanding what makes up the composition of good history was present 60 years ago also. Makes me worry about the situation in 2050.

[LincolnMan]

I just bought George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek. Looks promising Haven't read it yet.

[Mylye2222]

You simply can't judge historical characters by today's standards. To understand them, you have to appreciate the whole environment they were living in. Today's political correcteness and repentance culture requires to dimiss history and revise it. Revisionism is politically motivated, and in the worst way.
Example :Had Lincoln racial préjudice? Yes he had some. Was he a racist?? By today's standards, kind of!! But for a man of his era, he was far less racist than his contemporaries. Plus, over time, the few prejudices he may have harbored decreased.

[LincolnMan]

(12-02-2019 01:26 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  You simply can't judge historical characters by today's standards. To understand them, you have to appreciate the whole environment they were living in. Today's political correcteness and repentance culture requires to dimiss history and revise it. Revisionism is politically motivated, and in the worst way.
Example :Had Lincoln racial préjudice? Yes he had some. Was he a racist?? By today's standards, kind of!! But for a man of his era, he was far less racist than his contemporaries. Plus, over time, the few prejudices he may have harbored decreased.

Absolutely agree.

[Dennis Urban]

(12-02-2019 02:09 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 01:26 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  You simply can't judge historical characters by today's standards. To understand them, you have to appreciate the whole environment they were living in. Today's political correcteness and repentance culture requires to dimiss history and revise it. Revisionism is politically motivated, and in the worst way.
Example :Had Lincoln racial préjudice? Yes he had some. Was he a racist?? By today's standards, kind of!! But for a man of his era, he was far less racist than his contemporaries. Plus, over time, the few prejudices he may have harbored decreased.

Absolutely agree.

Kudos to Mylye222 for expressing this sentiment which I have also long advocated (and welcome to the forum). I do a fair number of speaking engagements every year and I always advise my audience to better understand history by reading period first-hand accounts and not to try to judge what was in people's minds at the time based on today's revisionist historians' writings. No one today can truly assess what the people living at the time actually thought other than reading their own words. Deal with their thoughts, based on their experiences, as they expressed them in their letters and writings. Letters, diaries, and writings of the common folks are most important in this regard. I will now step off the soap box.

[Mylye2222]

(12-03-2019 09:53 AM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 02:09 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 01:26 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  You simply can't judge historical characters by today's standards. To understand them, you have to appreciate the whole environment they were living in. Today's political correcteness and repentance culture requires to dimiss history and revise it. Revisionism is politically motivated, and in the worst way.
Example :Had Lincoln racial préjudice? Yes he had some. Was he a racist?? By today's standards, kind of!! But for a man of his era, he was far less racist than his contemporaries. Plus, over time, the few prejudices he may have harbored decreased.

Absolutely agree.

Kudos to Mylye222 for expressing this sentiment which I have also long advocated (and welcome to the forum). I do a fair number of speaking engagements every year and I always advise my audience to better understand history by reading period first-hand accounts and not to try to judge what was in people's minds at the time based on today's revisionist historians' writings. No one today can truly assess what the people living at the time actually thought other than reading their own words. Deal with their thoughts, based on their experiences, as they expressed them in their letters and writings. Letters, diaries, and writings of the common folks are most important in this regard. I will now step off the soap box.

Thank you for your appreciation. I am in France and over there repentance culture is becoming more and more frightening. For us it regards colonization.

[L Verge]

(12-03-2019 01:03 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:53 AM)Dennis Urban Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 02:09 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 01:26 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  You simply can't judge historical characters by today's standards. To understand them, you have to appreciate the whole environment they were living in. Today's political correcteness and repentance culture requires to dimiss history and revise it. Revisionism is politically motivated, and in the worst way.
Example :Had Lincoln racial préjudice? Yes he had some. Was he a racist?? By today's standards, kind of!! But for a man of his era, he was far less racist than his contemporaries. Plus, over time, the few prejudices he may have harbored decreased.

Absolutely agree.

Kudos to Mylye222 for expressing this sentiment which I have also long advocated (and welcome to the forum). I do a fair number of speaking engagements every year and I always advise my audience to better understand history by reading period first-hand accounts and not to try to judge what was in people's minds at the time based on today's revisionist historians' writings. No one today can truly assess what the people living at the time actually thought other than reading their own words. Deal with their thoughts, based on their experiences, as they expressed them in their letters and writings. Letters, diaries, and writings of the common folks are most important in this regard. I will now step off the soap box.

Thank you for your appreciation. I am in France and over there repentance culture is becoming more and more frightening. For us it regards colonization.

I am appreciating your term "repentance culture." In my region of the U.S. (twelve miles from the U.S. Capitol building), the epitaph "white guilt" is what is most frequently thrown at us - or at least insinuated. My head will be severed from my neck for this comment, but I feel neither repentant nor guilty for the society that existed over 100 years before I was born. And yes, my ancestors held slaves...