For me it's just another form of intolerance. Our empire builders, racist, sexist etc as they were, left us some wonderful legacies. We can deplore the former while enjoying and appreciating the latter.
As just about everyone living before 1900 or perhaps even 1950 held views or engaged in practices that the modern PC priesthood would deem unacceptable, that line if reasoning suggests we should indeed be heading down the same road as ISIS in condemning and even destroying the past.
I'm sure that's not what you think David. But how do you strike a middle position? Do we say hurrah to things where we suspect there was a bit less racism, sexism, labour exploitation etc. and boo hiss to those where we suspect that maybe there was a bit more? How to we gauge that?
It's a nonsense.
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
I'd say social attitudes towards the disabled and those of different sexualities have liberalised. Religion has almost entirely dropped out of public life.
On the other hand, speech is now more policed (socially and legally) than it was 30 years ago, people are slightly less trusting of one another and there is a bit less personal privacy.
I'm encoay. It's a combination of Brexit, absurd media/political lack of robust language re terrorism and the falling star of the Left in general.
We're a long way from Peak PC. I'm trying to think of when that was at its worst - mid to late 2000s?
At is inception Political Correctness was really no more than an attempt to bring a little civility and politeness into public life, saying it is no longer acceptable to openly call people n**ggers, k*kes, PaK*is or f*ggots. Like many things the far left then appropriated it and took it to ridiculous extremes and discredited the whole notion.
Personally I don't really have an issue with people using these words because it reflects more on them as people than anything else.
Not insulting people used to be a matter of good manners. It seems to have been replaced by a desire to eliminate offensiveness and whitewash the past. This seems to be a daft approach.
Political correctneswithpolitical correctness.
I'm sure future generations will lambast us for our monstrous slaughter of sapient creatures and our destruction of the environment.
When we had that idiotic Rhodes Must Fall stuff, I suggested a compromise would be to put a plaque up against all images and statues of historical figures, which stated 'People in the past had different views than we do today - if they were not racist or sexist, chances are they were still arseholes. So get over it'.
Better to hear worthless and offensive thought and comment, than people are restricted from expressing potentially worthy thought and comment through fear of being accused of causing offence.
For me it's just another form of intolerance. Our empire builders, racist, sexist etc as they were,latter.
Morally difficult if one is built on the other.
Nobodies historical legacy is free of moral difficulty, we cannot ignore it but it would be an overreaction to have that disallow any celebration.
Where people think there is a lack of moral difficulty, I'd bet good money it's through ignorance of historical realities in that case.
Quite. The mindset that most needs rejecting is that of the binary blinkers: that something must be black or white and that if it's not one then it must be the other. Recognising, facing up to and accepting moral ambiguities is a good and mature thing to do.
To be honest, if you brought forward in time an SWP nut from say 1976 to today, he/she would be thrilled and delighted with how deeply this agenda has become embedded in British public life.
Nick Palmer put up a superb post on here a couple of years back demonstrating just that. How many policies of the, then, radical left had become not only mainstream but in some cases actually adopted by the Conservative Party.
I'm still not convinced that governments are thought leaders.
My Mum was extremely disdainful of 'poofters' until one of her grandsons came out. When a particular part of society is seen as the 'Other', it can be mocked and despised. Once you realise you know some (say) gay people, it changes your views.
Eventually, governments catch up to society.
Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage had a dramatic effect on its approval amongst african-americans.
Britain decriminalised homosexuality long before the public was in favour of it.
I'm still not sure the UK is actively in favour of homosexuality. It's just not seen as salient.
It's not really something you need to be "in favour" of, though, is it? You either are or you aren't gay. And unless you fancy the person and are the wrong sex for them it's not really any of your business who someone else has sex with.
All that is needed - though this is quite a lot in fact - is the realization that not everyone is the same, that variety is the spice of life and that you should live and let live. We are all a minority somewhere. There is no "them" and "us" and treating others as we would be treated is a pretty good and sensible way of living - and quite old-fashioned in many respects.
And if people disagree well so be it. What is most irritating about modern life is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on anything must necessarily be a bigot, as if there is no more space for the very idea of legitimate disagreement. It is a very intolerant way of going about things really.
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
Excellent post.
What often happens is that the line that history travelled in becomes retrospectively labelled the "more liberal" or "more progressive" path (at least until the course of history changes its mind again).
For example: eugenics. The liberal Great and Good were strong promoters of socio-genetic cleansing, along with other things that the more backwards or conservative elements found horrifying like abortion rights.
As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
I don't think it's inconceivable we could have ended up with a society the other way around, in which case I'm sure we'd view the early eugenicists as pioneers ahead of their time, and early abortionists as child-killers (especially if the only men and women able to create new life were to be highly-rated breeding stock, and each fresh generation were seen as superior to their parents').
And there are few guarantees about what the society of 100 or 200 years time will think of ours. I'm not convinced that right-based moral thinking will hold so much sway then - it's inimical to other approaches such as "greater good" utilitarianism, and has always begged questions about who gets to construct and construe said rights. They may well see the world through paradigms we simply haven't thought of - not every worldview has been invented yet.
I wonder if paedophiles will be recognised as having suffered psychological trauma as a child, or sexual abuse themselves in future, rather than witch hunted, if we will see shipping grannies into old people's homes, locking people in a jail cell for 40 years, or two parents working full time and long hours as neglecting the kids, or tolerance of extremist religions for fear of being painted racist as all bad social policies of the early 21st C.
Dunno. But either way, there will be plenty who look back and condemn us as idiots.
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
...As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
Marie Stopes is the poster girl for eugenics and abortion.
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
Excellent post.
What often happens is that the line that history travelled in becomes retrospectively labelled the "more liberal" or "more progressive" path (at least until the course of history changes its mind again).
For example: eugenics. The liberal Great and Good were strong promoters of socio-genetic cleansing, along with other things that the more backwards or conservative elements found horrifying like abortion rights.
As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
I don't think it's inconceivable we could have ended up with a society the other way around, in which case I'm sure we'd view the early eugenicists as pioneers ahead of their time, and early abortionists as child-killers (especially if the only men and women able to create new life were to be highly-rated breeding stock, and each fresh generation were seen as superior to their parents').
And there are few guarantees about what the society of 100 or 200 years time will think of ours. I'm not convinced that right-based moral thinking will hold so much sway then - it's inimical to other approaches such as "greater good" utilitarianism, and has always begged questions about who gets to construct and construe said rights. They may well see the world through paradigms we simply haven't thought of - not every worldview has been invented yet.
Sure. If the UK is Islamic, a hundred years from now, the people who are around then will certainly consider it to be a far more progressive society than the one we have now.
When we had that idiotic Rhodes Must Fall stuff, I suggested a compromise would be to put a plaque up against all images and statues of historical figures, which stated 'People in the past had different views than we do today - if they were not racist or sexist, chances are they were still arseholes. So get over it'.
Better to hear worthless and offensive thought and comment, than people are restricted from expressing potentially worthy thought and comment through fear of being accused of causing offence.
-------------------
-----------------
Over in Iraq and Syria, of course, a group of nutters has indeed been engaged in trying to destroy all evidence of an 'inappropriate' past.
The Rhodes Must Fall tendency are pretty similar IMO.
I was in Ukraine last month on holiday. Over the past couple of years there they've removed loads of statues and references to anyone Russian or Soviet, in one city there was an empty plinth in the main square, where a huge statue of Lenin had stood for decades until last year. Sad.
Yes, they should totally keep the statues to a regime that visited famine and ethnic cleansing upon them. Makes total sense.
The reason they're trying to erase old memories is nothing to do with what happened in the past, and everything to do with what's happening now in that region.
As I wandered around the cities of the east coast of America I reflected on the cultural savagery of them tearing down statues of George the 3rd and thought 'Sad'.
When we had that idiotic Rhodes Must Fall stuff, I suggested a compromise would be to put a plaque up against all images and statues of historical figures, which stated 'People in the past had different views than we do today - if they were not racist or sexist, chances are they were still arseholes. So get over it'.
Better to hear worthless and offensive thought and comment, than people are restricted from expressing potentially worthy thought and comment through fear of being accused of causing offence.
-------------------
-----------------
Over in Iraq and Syria, of course, a group of nutters has indeed been engaged in trying to destroy all evidence of an 'inappropriate' past.
The Rhodes Must Fall tendency are pretty similar IMO.
I was in Ukraine last month on holiday. Over the past couple of years there they've removed loads of statues and references to anyone Russian or Soviet, in one city there was an empty plinth in the main square, where a huge statue of Lenin had stood for decades until last year. Sad.
Yes, they should totally keep the statues to a regime that visited famine and ethnic cleansing upon them. Makes total sense.
Though tying in neatly with the rest of the thread, plenty of Western intellectuals thought that the regime carrying out the ethnic cleansing was humane, rational, and progressive.
Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage had a dramatic effect on its approval amongst african-americans.
Britain decriminalised homosexuality long before the public was in favour of it.
I'm still not sure the UK is actively in favour of homosexuality. It's just not seen as salient.
It's not really something you need to be "in favour" of, though, is it? You either are or you aren't gay. And unless you fancy the person and are the wrong sex for them it's not really any of your business who someone else has sex with.
All that is needed - though this is quite a lot in fact - is the realization that not everyone is the same, that variety is the spice of life and that you should live and let live. We are all a minority somewhere. There is no "them" and "us" and treating others as we would be treated is a pretty good and sensible way of living - and quite old-fashioned in many respects.
And if people disagree well so be it. What is most irritating about modern life is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on anything must necessarily be a bigot, as if there is no more space for the very idea of legitimate disagreement. It is a very intolerant way of going about things really.
Yes, but viewing homosexuality as 'disgusting' or 'queer' was very common 35-40 years ago, if not more recently, so people clearly did object to it at the time, or wanted it entirely behind closed doors and not to know about it at all, which it was.
Even more recently, people would stare at disabled in wheelchairs and pity or patronise them. Earlier they could even get angry if they were in a public space.
And married women with kids were expected to look after said kids, not work.
Today, I'd say mental health attitudes still have the furthest to go - if you had to take time off, would your employer understand, or would he/she believe you just couldn't hack it and it would permenantly affect your career?
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
Excellent post.
What often happens is that the line that history travelled in becomes retrospectively labelled the "more liberal" or "more progressive" path (at least until the course of history changes its mind again).
For example: eugenics. The liberal Great and Good were strong promoters of socio-genetic cleansing, along with other things that the more backwards or conservative elements found horrifying like abortion rights.
As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
I don't think it's inconceivable we could have ended up with a society the other way around, in which case I'm sure we'd view the early eugenicists as pioneers ahead of their time, and early abortionists as child-killers (especially if the only men and women able to create new life were to be highly-rated breeding stock, and each fresh generation were seen as superior to their parents').
And there are few guarantees about what the society of 100 or 200 years time will think of ours. I'm not convinced that right-based moral thinking will hold so much sway then - it's inimical to other approaches such as "greater good" utilitarianism, and has always begged questions about who gets to construct and construe said rights. They may well see the world through paradigms we simply haven't thought of - not every worldview has been invented yet.
Sure. If the UK is Islamic, a hundred years from now, the people who are around then will certainly consider it to be a far more progressive society than the one we have now.
Well, yes, they'd either say that out loud or be thrown off the same rooftops as the gayers will be during the intervening revolution.
To be honest, if you brought forward in time an SWP nut from say 1976 to today, he/she would be thrilled and delighted with how deeply this agenda has become embedded in British public life.
Nick Palmer put up a superb post on here a couple of years back demonstrating just that. How many policies of the, then, radical left had become not only mainstream but in some cases actually adopted by the Conservative Party.
I'm still not convinced that governments are thought leaders.
My Mum was extremely disdainful of 'poofters' until one of her grandsons came out. When a particular part of society is seen as the 'Other', it can be mocked and despised. Once you realise you know some (say) gay people, it changes your views.
Eventually, governments catch up to society.
Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage had a dramatic effect on its approval amongst african-americans.
Britain decriminalised homosexuality long before the public was in favour of it.
I'm still not sure the UK is actively in favour of homosexuality. It's just not seen as salient.
It's not really something you need to be "in favour" of, though, is it? You either are or you aren't gay. And unless you fancy the person and are the wrong sex for them it's not really any of your business who someone else has sex with.
All that is needed - though this is quite a lot in fact - is the realization that not everyone is the same, that variety is the spice of life and that you should live and let live. We are all a minority somewhere. There is no "them" and "us" and treating others as we would be treated is a pretty good and sensible way of living - and quite old-fashioned in many respects.
And if people disagree well so be it. What is most irritating about modern life is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on anything must necessarily be a bigot, as if there is no more space for the very idea of legitimate disagreement. It is a very intolerant way of going about things really.
I could cheerfully run my life with a moral code based on proverbs (with the odd adage thrown in). My primary school teacher (Miss Podmore, blessings be upon her) used to say "Do as you would be done by". It has served me well.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
To be honest, if you brought forward in time an SWP nut from say 1976 to today, he/she would be thrilled and delighted with how deeply this agenda has become embedded in British public life.
Nick Palmer put up a superb post on here a couple of years back demonstrating just that. How many policies of the, then, radical left had become not only mainstream but in some cases actually adopted by the Conservative Party.
I'm still not convinced that governments are thought leaders.
My Mum was extremely disdainful of 'poofters' until one of her grandsons came out. When a particular part of society is seen as the 'Other', it can be mocked and despised. Once you realise you know some (say) gay people, it changes your views.
Eventually, governments catch up to society.
Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage had a dramatic effect on its approval amongst african-americans.
Britain decriminalised homosexuality long before the public was in favour of it.
I'm still not sure the UK is actively in favour of homosexuality. It's just not seen as salient.
It's not really something you need to be "in favour" of, though, is it? You either are or you aren't gay. And unless you fancy the person and are the wrong sex for them it's not really any of your business who someone else has sex with.
All that is needed - though this is quite a lot in fact - is the realization that not everyone is the same, that variety is the spice of life and that you should live and let live. We are all a minority somewhere. There is no "them" and "us" and treating others as we would be treated is a pretty good and sensible way of living - and quite old-fashioned in many respects.
And if people disagree well so be it. What is most irritating about modern life is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on anything must necessarily be a bigot, as if there is no more space for the very idea of legitimate disagreement. It is a very intolerant way of going about things really.
I could cheerfully run my life with a moral code based on proverbs (with the odd adage thrown in). My primary school teacher (Miss Podmore, blessings be upon her) used to say "Do as you would be done by". It has served me well.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
@John_M today you can expect tolerance but back in the 50s (to pick a decade at random) you would be expected to conform.
It wasn't an illiberal society, fewer laws and police, but dress codes, hierarchy, were much more socially regulated.
For example, wearing a suit (with a white shirt) and tie all week. And the right sort of tie. And clean shaven. And addressing your boss as Mr. Smith (not by his first name) and so on. And naff all open on a Sunday.
Today, social norms are much looser and we try and address issues through legal regulations.
To be honest, if you brought forward in time an SWP nut from say 1976 to today, he/she would be thrilled and delighted with how deeply this agenda has become embedded in British public life.
Nick Palmer put up a superb post on here a couple of years back demonstrating just that. How many policies of the, then, radical left had become not only mainstream but in some cases actually adopted by the Conservative Party.
I'm still not convinced that governments are thought leaders.
My Mum was extremely disdainful of 'poofters' until one of her grandsons came out. When a particular part of society is seen as the 'Other', it can be mocked and despised. Once you realise you know some (say) gay people, it changes your views.
Eventually, governments catch up to society.
Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage had a dramatic effect on its approval amongst african-americans.
Britain decriminalised homosexuality long before the public was in favour of it.
I'm still not sure the UK is actively in favour of homosexuality. It's just not seen as salient.
It's not really something you need to be "in favour" of, though, is it? You either are or you aren't gay. And unless you fancy the person and are the wrong sex for them it's not really any of your business who someone else has sex with.
All that is needed - though this is quite a lot in fact - is the realization that not everyone is the same, that variety is the spice of life and that you should live and let live. We are all a minority somewhere. There is no "them" and "us" and treating others as we would be treated is a pretty good and sensible way of living - and quite old-fashioned in many respects.
And if people disagree well so be it. What is most irritating about modern life is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on anything must necessarily be a bigot, as if there is no more space for the very idea of legitimate disagreement. It is a very intolerant way of going about things really.
I could cheerfully run my life with a moral code based on proverbs (with the odd adage thrown in). My primary school teacher (Miss Podmore, blessings be upon her) used to say "Do as you would be done by". It has served me well.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
I could cheerfully run my life with a moral code based on proverbs (with the odd adage thrown in). My primary school teacher (Miss Podmore, blessings be upon her) used to say "Do as you would be done by". It has served me well.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
@John_M today you can expect tolerance but back in the 50s (to pick a decade at random) you would be expected to conform.
It wasn't an illiberal society, fewer laws and police, but dress codes, hierarchy, were much more socially regulated.
For example, wearing a suit (with a white shirt) and tie all week. And the right sort of tie. And clean shaven. And addressing your boss as Mr. Smith (not by his first name) and so on. And naff all open on a Sunday.
Today, social norms are much looser and we try and address issues through legal regulations.
I was born in 1960, so I've experienced a good deal of that cultural change in my business & personal life.
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
...As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
Marie Stopes is the poster girl for eugenics and abortion.
And now we have the situation where people who are pregnant and don't want a child go in one door of the hospital, while in the next door come those who are struggling to conceive and wanting expensive treatment. Both funded by the government.
Would it not be easier (and cheaper for the government) to facilitate the two groups talking to each other and arranging an adoption, as used to be the case?
I could cheerfully run my life with a moral code based on proverbs (with the odd adage thrown in). My primary school teacher (Miss Podmore, blessings be upon her) used to say "Do as you would be done by". It has served me well.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
I'm afraid Miss Podmore (bpuh) totally ripped off a character in Charles Kingsley's novel, rather than the Bible, though it's clear that Mr Kingsley has a case to answer here .
I understand that the Golden Rule dates backs to Egyptian times, so presumably even the Bible isn't above a little gentle plagiarism.
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
...As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
Marie Stopes is the poster girl for eugenics and abortion.
And now we have the situation where people who are pregnant and don't want a child go in one door of the hospital, while in the next door come those who are struggling to conceive and wanting expensive treatment. Both funded by the government. Would it not be easier to facilitate the two groups talking to each other and arrange an adoption, as always used to be the case?
The Catholic adoption agencies used to be particularly great at this until the govt made a point of stopping them.
@John_M today you can expect tolerance but back in the 50s (to pick a decade at random) you would be expected to conform.
It wasn't an illiberal society, fewer laws and police, but dress codes, hierarchy, were much more socially regulated.
For example, wearing a suit (with a white shirt) and tie all week. And the right sort of tie. And clean shaven. And addressing your boss as Mr. Smith (not by his first name) and so on. And naff all open on a Sunday.
Today, social norms are much looser and we try and address issues through legal regulations.
I was born in 1960, so I've experienced a good deal of that cultural change in my business & personal life.
I was at prep school in the early 90s and we were expected to address *each other* by our surnames and I just caught the end of the cane (and I mean that literally)
History does not travel in an automatically more liberal direction either. Sixteenth century Europe was a good deal more intolerant than fifteenth century Europe. The Middle East is a good deal more intolerant now than it was 50 years ago. For all we know, the UK might have converted to Islam 100 years from now. I wouldn't consider it fair to judge people alive today in the UK by the values of such a society.
...As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
Marie Stopes is the poster girl for eugenics and abortion.
And now we have the situation where people who are pregnant and don't want a child go in one door of the hospital, while in the next door come those who are struggling to conceive and wanting expensive treatment. Both funded by the government. Would it not be easier to facilitate the two groups talking to each other and arrange an adoption, as always used to be the case?
The Catholic adoption agencies used to be particularly great at this until the govt made a point of stopping them.
Indeed. A friend of mine used to do just that. Nowadays they give support to pregnant women, but have to deal with the State apparatus of social services and adoption 'providers' as a much larger part of their remit. Is this really progress?
@John_M today you can expect tolerance but back in the 50s (to pick a decade at random) you would be expected to conform.
It wasn't an illiberal society, fewer laws and police, but dress codes, hierarchy, were much more socially regulated.
For example, wearing a suit (with a white shirt) and tie all week. And the right sort of tie. And clean shaven. And addressing your boss as Mr. Smith (not by his first name) and so on. And naff all open on a Sunday.
Today, social norms are much looser and we try and address issues through legal regulations.
I was born in 1960, so I've experienced a good deal of that cultural change in my business & personal life.
To play devil's advocate, it's not all rosy.
Generally, society as a whole was well-dressed, groomed and not overweight.
Now, if you go into many town centres at the weekend, the people you see - and what they allow themselves to go out in - is not a pretty sight.
@John_M today you can expect tolerance but back in the 50s (to pick a decade at random) you would be expected to conform.
It wasn't an illiberal society, fewer laws and police, but dress codes, hierarchy, were much more socially regulated.
For example, wearing a suit (with a white shirt) and tie all week. And the right sort of tie. And clean shaven. And addressing your boss as Mr. Smith (not by his first name) and so on. And naff all open on a Sunday.
Today, social norms are much looser and we try and address issues through legal regulations.
I was born in 1960, so I've experienced a good deal of that cultural change in my business & personal life.
To play devil's advocate, it's not all rosy.
Generally, society as a whole was well-dressed, groomed and not overweight.
Now, if you go into many town centres at the weekend, the people you see - and what they allow themselves to go out in - is not a pretty sight.
While I wouldn't live anytime but now, in the 60s and 70s you could leave school at 15 and still have a decent chance of owning a home and supporting a traditional family (Dad working, Mum housewife, 2.4 kids) on one income.
I'd better stop there before I'm accused of longing for Empire and a rolling back of women's rights .
I could cheerfully run my life with a moral code based on proverbs (with the odd adage thrown in). My primary school teacher (Miss Podmore, blessings be upon her) used to say "Do as you would be done by". It has served me well.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
I'm afraid Miss Podmore (bpuh) totally ripped off a character in Charles Kingsley's novel, rather than the Bible, though it's clear that Mr Kingsley has a case to answer here .
I understand that the Golden Rule dates backs to Egyptian times, so presumably even the Bible isn't above a little gentle plagiarism.
42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani):
I have not committed sin. I have not committed robbery with violence. I have not stolen. I have not slain men and women. I have not stolen grain. I have not purloined offerings. I have not stolen the property of the gods. I have not uttered lies. I have not carried away food. I have not uttered curses. I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men. I have made none to weep. I have not eaten the heart [i.e., I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse]. I have not attacked any man. I am not a man of deceit. I have not stolen cultivated land. I have not been an eavesdropper. I have slandered [no man]. I have not been angry without just cause. I have not debauched the wife of any man. I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god). I have not polluted myself. I have terrorized none. I have not transgressed [the Law]. I have not been wroth. I have not shut my ears to the words of truth. I have not blasphemed. I am not a man of violence. I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace). I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste. I have not pried into matters. I have not multiplied my words in speaking. I have wronged none, I have done no evil. I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King). I have never stopped [the flow of] water. I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger). I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God. I have not acted with evil rage. I have not stolen the bread of the gods. I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead. I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city. I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.
When we had that idiotic Rhodes Must Fall stuff, I suggested a compromise would be to put a plaque up against all images and statues of historical figures, which stated 'People in the past had different views than we do today - if they were not racist or sexist, chances are they were still arseholes. So get over it'.
Better to hear worthless and offensive thought and comment, than people are restricted from expressing potentially worthy thought and comment through fear of being accused of causing offence.
-------------------
-----------------
Over in Iraq and Syria, of course, a group of nutters has indeed been engaged in trying to destroy all evidence of an 'inappropriate' past.
The Rhodes Must Fall tendency are pretty similar IMO.
I was in Ukraine last month on holiday. Over the past couple of years there they've removed loads of statues and references to anyone Russian or Soviet, in one city there was an empty plinth in the main square, where a huge statue of Lenin had stood for decades until last year. Sad.
Yes, they should totally keep the statues to a regime that visited famine and ethnic cleansing upon them. Makes total sense.
Though tying in neatly with the rest of the thread, plenty of Western intellectuals thought that the regime carrying out the ethnic cleansing was humane, rational, and progressive.
And they continued to say that even in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Which makes the term 'intellectual's moot, methinks. D*ckheads is more like it.
Comments
On the other hand, speech is now more policed (socially and legally) than it was 30 years ago, people are slightly less trusting of one another and there is a bit less personal privacy.
All that is needed - though this is quite a lot in fact - is the realization that not everyone is the same, that variety is the spice of life and that you should live and let live. We are all a minority somewhere. There is no "them" and "us" and treating others as we would be treated is a pretty good and sensible way of living - and quite old-fashioned in many respects.
And if people disagree well so be it. What is most irritating about modern life is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing view on anything must necessarily be a bigot, as if there is no more space for the very idea of legitimate disagreement. It is a very intolerant way of going about things really.
What often happens is that the line that history travelled in becomes retrospectively labelled the "more liberal" or "more progressive" path (at least until the course of history changes its mind again).
For example: eugenics. The liberal Great and Good were strong promoters of socio-genetic cleansing, along with other things that the more backwards or conservative elements found horrifying like abortion rights.
As it happened we ended up in a society which has got abortion rights but not a government-controlled eugenics programme. And when we look back at the past, we view the proponents of abortion rights as progressive and the proponents of eugenics as illiberal and intolerant, even though they were often the same people - our judgment depending on which hat they were wearing at the time.
I don't think it's inconceivable we could have ended up with a society the other way around, in which case I'm sure we'd view the early eugenicists as pioneers ahead of their time, and early abortionists as child-killers (especially if the only men and women able to create new life were to be highly-rated breeding stock, and each fresh generation were seen as superior to their parents').
And there are few guarantees about what the society of 100 or 200 years time will think of ours. I'm not convinced that right-based moral thinking will hold so much sway then - it's inimical to other approaches such as "greater good" utilitarianism, and has always begged questions about who gets to construct and construe said rights. They may well see the world through paradigms we simply haven't thought of - not every worldview has been invented yet.
Dunno. But either way, there will be plenty who look back and condemn us as idiots.
Even more recently, people would stare at disabled in wheelchairs and pity or patronise them. Earlier they could even get angry if they were in a public space.
And married women with kids were expected to look after said kids, not work.
Today, I'd say mental health attitudes still have the furthest to go - if you had to take time off, would your employer understand, or would he/she believe you just couldn't hack it and it would permenantly affect your career?
Dunno.
I said down thread, I should reasonably expect tolerance. I can't demand approval, as that denies the rights of others to disagree.
It wasn't an illiberal society, fewer laws and police, but dress codes, hierarchy, were much more socially regulated.
For example, wearing a suit (with a white shirt) and tie all week. And the right sort of tie. And clean shaven. And addressing your boss as Mr. Smith (not by his first name) and so on. And naff all open on a Sunday.
Today, social norms are much looser and we try and address issues through legal regulations.
"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Luke 6:31
Would it not be easier (and cheaper for the government) to facilitate the two groups talking to each other and arranging an adoption, as used to be the case?
I understand that the Golden Rule dates backs to Egyptian times, so presumably even the Bible isn't above a little gentle plagiarism.
All religions rip-off those that came before them.
Generally, society as a whole was well-dressed, groomed and not overweight.
Now, if you go into many town centres at the weekend, the people you see - and what they allow themselves to go out in - is not a pretty sight.
I'd better stop there before I'm accused of longing for Empire and a rolling back of women's rights
I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the gods.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart [i.e., I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse].
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause.
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god).
I have not polluted myself.
I have terrorized none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger).
I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God.
I have not acted with evil rage.
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead.
I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.