Thanks. Well researched and very well said. Presentism is temporal bigotry. I would not be surprised if the people of the future will view these scolds as we do the early missionaries who set out to convert "heathens" in foreign lands.
Thanks for championing this Dan. I assume your conclusion on the whiners here is based on the lack of merit you saw in their responses and I don’t have to waste my life reading them.
It seems we need more and louder voices calling out the self serving nature of the performances here. The worst part is it sets back actual social justice.
It would seem more effective for certain activists like this to focus on concrete injustices in the present but perhaps the self-aggrandizement, personal meaning-making and tribal rewards are just too irresistible?
If one googles the definition of "saint", many will be found. The definition differs by context, but the *idea* is generally the same.
Peter Kreeft, a prolific Catholic author and professor of philosophy, wrote this in 1987 for an article in National Catholic Register, titled "What is a Saint".
"What is a saint? First of all, one who knows he is a sinner. A saint knows all the news, both the bad news of sin and the good news of salvation. A saint is a true scientist, a true philosopher:
A saint knows the truth. A saint is a seer, one who sees what's there. A saint is a realist."
Removing the religious context from those words, I still find the idea completely valid. And applying the idea of that definition to Dr. Prescod-Weinstein's "This is about who we canonize and who are our real saints", when I include the equation you posited, I come to the obvious conclusion about her own earnest effort at self-canonization, though my actual numeric result differs from yours a bit in that I came up with something less than zero as opposed to "pretty much".
The problem with Presco-Weinstein et al is that they need to visit a good optometrist, maybe get a new set of specs, so as to better "see what's there". And once fitted, they should take note of more than their physical appearance when they check out their new 'look' in the mirror. But realistically, I doubt even a lens as powerful as that of the Hubble or even the Webb would aid them in seeing what's really there, looking back at them.
On an unrelated note, I was thinking about your writings on the futility of making predictions and forecasting the future when the NFL playoffs started yesterday. I defy anyone to go back to all the season previews and look, in vain, for any mention of the name "Brock Purdy" (or even Geno Smith, for that matter).
The comparison I prefer is to present a ay animal rights and vegetarianism. It's easy to be against slavery and bigotry in this era where there's little of the first and the latter is at best unfashionable. But admit you're a vegetarian with vegan tendencies and it's like stepping out of that other closet in 1960. We don't need to eat meat and could quite healthily eliminate 80 percent of the misery on this planet by eradicating factory farmed livestock and fishing. Castration and de-beaking, removing tails, crating calves for veal. Fois Gras. . An indigenous artist in the GWN just made a monument of a mountain of steel leg hold traps shaped like a fur trapper to honor that wonderful tradition, completely missing the irony. Let it stand I say for the rest of time a monument to callous disregard for what Dr Hugh Drummond labeled "Insignigant Others." He was referring to the Tuskegee Experiment.
This is a very thoughtful piece Dan. It made me think. I'm sure that there are many people who are conflicted about this issue. I am. I have been pretty harsh on historical figures who adopted what I would, in the 21st century, consider unethical, even reprehensible. You make a very strong point when you ask if I would have given up wealth, position or power over matters that were considered acceptable in the 17th or 18th century. Tough question. Probably not. So, that made me think. I'm at this point now. I can back off judging people in he past with some views about what I think are wrong. But, for some people, the things that they did or supported should not be lauded or honoured. Using MacDonald as an example, there is evidence that he took active measures to starve defenseless Metis so he could push the railway through. Anyone, whatever religion, whatever time in history or whatever nationality, knows this is wrong, reprehensible, evil. Indigenous people have called him to account. To them, he is reprehensible. So, remove MacDonald from the honour role. History is replete with examples. There are some things done that are evil, by whatever measure, including historical norms. I should admit that I don't support statues and lauding people unless they were incredibly helpful to others. Let's just write their history with truth and acuracy. My thoughts may evolve, but thanks for the food for thought.
Thanks. Well researched and very well said. Presentism is temporal bigotry. I would not be surprised if the people of the future will view these scolds as we do the early missionaries who set out to convert "heathens" in foreign lands.
Thanks for championing this Dan. I assume your conclusion on the whiners here is based on the lack of merit you saw in their responses and I don’t have to waste my life reading them.
It seems we need more and louder voices calling out the self serving nature of the performances here. The worst part is it sets back actual social justice.
It would seem more effective for certain activists like this to focus on concrete injustices in the present but perhaps the self-aggrandizement, personal meaning-making and tribal rewards are just too irresistible?
If one googles the definition of "saint", many will be found. The definition differs by context, but the *idea* is generally the same.
Peter Kreeft, a prolific Catholic author and professor of philosophy, wrote this in 1987 for an article in National Catholic Register, titled "What is a Saint".
"What is a saint? First of all, one who knows he is a sinner. A saint knows all the news, both the bad news of sin and the good news of salvation. A saint is a true scientist, a true philosopher:
A saint knows the truth. A saint is a seer, one who sees what's there. A saint is a realist."
Removing the religious context from those words, I still find the idea completely valid. And applying the idea of that definition to Dr. Prescod-Weinstein's "This is about who we canonize and who are our real saints", when I include the equation you posited, I come to the obvious conclusion about her own earnest effort at self-canonization, though my actual numeric result differs from yours a bit in that I came up with something less than zero as opposed to "pretty much".
The problem with Presco-Weinstein et al is that they need to visit a good optometrist, maybe get a new set of specs, so as to better "see what's there". And once fitted, they should take note of more than their physical appearance when they check out their new 'look' in the mirror. But realistically, I doubt even a lens as powerful as that of the Hubble or even the Webb would aid them in seeing what's really there, looking back at them.
On an unrelated note, I was thinking about your writings on the futility of making predictions and forecasting the future when the NFL playoffs started yesterday. I defy anyone to go back to all the season previews and look, in vain, for any mention of the name "Brock Purdy" (or even Geno Smith, for that matter).
The comparison I prefer is to present a ay animal rights and vegetarianism. It's easy to be against slavery and bigotry in this era where there's little of the first and the latter is at best unfashionable. But admit you're a vegetarian with vegan tendencies and it's like stepping out of that other closet in 1960. We don't need to eat meat and could quite healthily eliminate 80 percent of the misery on this planet by eradicating factory farmed livestock and fishing. Castration and de-beaking, removing tails, crating calves for veal. Fois Gras. . An indigenous artist in the GWN just made a monument of a mountain of steel leg hold traps shaped like a fur trapper to honor that wonderful tradition, completely missing the irony. Let it stand I say for the rest of time a monument to callous disregard for what Dr Hugh Drummond labeled "Insignigant Others." He was referring to the Tuskegee Experiment.
This was a fantastic read.
This is a very thoughtful piece Dan. It made me think. I'm sure that there are many people who are conflicted about this issue. I am. I have been pretty harsh on historical figures who adopted what I would, in the 21st century, consider unethical, even reprehensible. You make a very strong point when you ask if I would have given up wealth, position or power over matters that were considered acceptable in the 17th or 18th century. Tough question. Probably not. So, that made me think. I'm at this point now. I can back off judging people in he past with some views about what I think are wrong. But, for some people, the things that they did or supported should not be lauded or honoured. Using MacDonald as an example, there is evidence that he took active measures to starve defenseless Metis so he could push the railway through. Anyone, whatever religion, whatever time in history or whatever nationality, knows this is wrong, reprehensible, evil. Indigenous people have called him to account. To them, he is reprehensible. So, remove MacDonald from the honour role. History is replete with examples. There are some things done that are evil, by whatever measure, including historical norms. I should admit that I don't support statues and lauding people unless they were incredibly helpful to others. Let's just write their history with truth and acuracy. My thoughts may evolve, but thanks for the food for thought.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/here-is-what-sir-john-a-macdonald-did-to-indigenous-people