"For his time" is no longer considered a meaningful argument when discussing whether someone is racist (or -ist, -ist, -phobic, whatever). This is
because it is not merely what the attitude is, but that it is not of the
present. Presentism is as important as ideology, because my usual
complaint about politics driven by social rather than intellectual
premises still occurs. It is not just high school girls, disdaining you for not knowing what boot heights are fashionable this year, but many others, who focus on whether something is cultural appropriation or said using the exact right phrases. Those others skew urban, and formally educated, and socially obsessed, and thus settle in to left-leaning politics because that fits into their ecosystem better. So do not ask for context. There is no context since last Tuesday.
I mean, how different is this from Maureen Dowd, really?
Or (ahem) the cast of SNL?
CS Lewis: "All that is not eternal is eternally out of date."
If you haven't seen it yet, you might be interested in current American History Association president James Sweet's column addressing the problem of presentism, which is now preceded by his apology to all those in the AHA he harmed in writing against presentism.
ReplyDeleteIs History History?
If by "interested" you mean infuriated and can't get it out of my head on my walk, you are probably correct.
ReplyDeleteWell, I apologize for ruining a good walk.
ReplyDelete