Read on Twitter
It’s not a cop out. Brutality/barbarism was the standard for millennia.
Slavery was a societal norm & accepted prize of war/conquest, only questioned by few Europeans in the 1700s (Arabs continued it into the 20th century).
The term ‘genocide’ itself was only coined in 1944. /1 https://twitter.com/followedbyhades/status/1278611713206648833
Slavery was a societal norm & accepted prize of war/conquest, only questioned by few Europeans in the 1700s (Arabs continued it into the 20th century).
The term ‘genocide’ itself was only coined in 1944. /1 https://twitter.com/followedbyhades/status/1278611713206648833
This is different from the end of slavery, by then it was generally accepted as wrong, so justifying the slavers of that time is wrong. But in the 100s years before it was a feature of human life across all continents, and all humans. Nothing to gain from dismissing that fact. /2
Even after slavery was accepted as wrong the brutal repression of rebellion, including genocidal acts, still seen as necessary to preserve Empire, as it always had. That didn’t change in Europe until WW2. Morals are relative, we see that globally. It takes lifetimes to change. /3
So when I talk against judging historical figures by “modern moral standards” I‘m not dismissing their actions. I see myself as an amateur historian, in favour of critical scrutiny of historical figures. Just do so within their context, not ours. That’s the way to understand. /4
Otherwise everybody who lived pre-1960 will have to be considered evil, which is bonkers. Goodness didn’t start with our generation. People then were good, just as people now are good. The difference is now we’re good relative to the standards of our time, they were to theirs. /5
Also, this is used primarily to debunk arguments attempting to paint Britain/the West as unique historical evils that created oppression/racism/brutality - which is ideological claptrap. Either the entirety of global history was evil, or morals are relative. It cannot be both. /6
