History in context

History in context

History should only be taught when in the context of the relevant age.

Explaining that at some time back in history, people did things that we now find reprehensible, is fine if the teaching includes information about the "standards," the understanding, the knowledge of that time. Just telling anyone that something, that is now illegal, was then commonly practised, makes those with less experience believe it was a criminal act at the time it occurred, so they make a moral judgement on people in history, a judgement that is flawed.

If historical facts are shown in the context of the times they occurred, if shown together with what was normal, legal and morally acceptable, to those times; then this is acceptable. But idealists with an agenda to condemn the past, tend to pick and choose when they start “history” and they tend to assume modern sensibilities can be applied retrospectively, some times back several hundred years. For example they talk of slavery without mentioning that many of the ancient Celtic British (which at the time was a collection of separate “kingdoms”) were enslaved by raiders from the Irish tribes, the Romans, the Saxons and the various nations who became “Vikings.” They ignore the fact that slavery was commonly practised all round the world, African tribes taking slaves from other African tribes, the various Germanic tribes taking slaves, the city state of Athens depended on slave labour for the wealth that enabled the wealthy to explore democratic ideas.

History has the ability of guide the future but that guidance can only be genuinely good guidance if the history being presented, is complete with the ambience of knowledge available its time. It is so easy to pick an isolated bit of “history” and build a distorted picture of wrongdoing around this. Take a simple example. At a period in history German nationals were interred in what were effectively prison camps in Britain and probably other places, simply because of their nationality. Deplorable if you do not consider why. Now put the situation in the context of a world wide bloody conflict between Germany and the “allies” where literally millions of lives were at risk, where mass slaughter was being practised; and then internment becomes less deplorable. Then add the consideration that it was in an age where warfare was along national lines, where loyalty, in all nations, to your own nation was much stronger than it is in the early 21st century. So attitudes and what was considered necessity were different. Since during this conflict, most British people would risk their life to aid the war effort, it was assumed any German would do the same for theirs and so they were placed where the potential to harm the British war effort was minimised. The same “thinking” led to internment of Japanese, in America. Condemning internment without fully understanding the situation and beliefs that prevailed at that time, is counter productive and irrational. This is just one small example.

It is pointless for modern young people, who did not live through the continuous tensions of the cold war, to condemn the attitudes of those who did. Experiences condition all humans, consciously or not, the anxieties and the joys of past experience, gets reflected in present reactions to new situations. This is shown in generalised national attitudes as well as in individuals.

Looking back hundreds of years and claiming such and such an isolated incident was “barbaric” or this or that practice was so abhorrent that they should be erased from public awareness; is likewise irrational and will lead to ignorance. People who behaved in a way that was acceptable in their own time, can not be brought before a modern day court to answer for “crimes” against laws that did not exist at the time they lived. Trying to punish descendants of these people, many generations later, is so irrational that there has to be other motivations, such as envy, political gain or self aggrandisement, for these demands.

From the time humans first evolved into recognisable sentient creatures, history has shaped future actions; but the shape of the future will not be improved by fragmenting the past. Each and every action, situation, and event has to be understood in the context of what went before it; because those involved in the action only had their past experience and knowledge to guide them.

No one has “future sight,” no one knows what people in 500 years time will consider normal or acceptable. May be they will find modern attitudes to be reprehensible, may be they will find the concepts of personal vilification, for differing views, to be absolutely unthinkable. There is a chance they will consider that those who try to select parts of history, to use for their own political or personal advancement; to be utterly contemptible.