Cancel culture and liberal presentism is going too far

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a 3rd year student at my University and for the 1st time in my life I decided to stop being a STEM purist and actually take some humanities courses; even though my major is still a STEM major I did technically need some writing intensive courses for my major, so I decided hey why not use this as an opportunity to have some fun outside of only taking math courses and diversify with some humanities courses. I signed up for a class on debate, rhetoric and argument and this was under the communication department. I really really like this class, it's fun and having a communication class of after years of only taking STEM is fun since diversity doesn't hurt, but I've noticed something about this class that I've never noticed in any of my other STEM courses ever - and that is the famous cliche of how at Universities the liberalism and cancel culture is far more conspicuous, especially when it comes to retroactively character assassinating every historical figure for not being 21st century liberals with woke morals and ideas. While it is true that we shouldn't excuse history's monsters just because back then people were more flawed - which is why I dont believe there is any excuse for supporting genocidal maniacs like Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson - it is also true that presentism is a bias where people judge people from back then by moral standards and paradigms it was never expected for people to have.

My class is a communication and rhetoric class and as such most of the concepts of argumentation and rhetoric have their origin in the Greek thinkers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Every time, and by every time I literally mean every time, there is any mention of any concept, idea, or term that the Greeks gave us - such as logos, ethos and pathos - my professor has to derail the topic and give a 5 minute tangent on how Aristotle or Plato were monsters and terrible scum because they thought slavery was ok and didnt think highly of women. I mean it's literally an OCD with this professor where any mention of any idea, any term, anything that is mentioned in our textbook, so long as it's origin ties in with some historical white figure who clearly came from a time when 21st century liberal and woke ideas weren't a thing, entire time from the lecture is siphoned to explain why so and so person was evil and terrible and deserves to burn in hell etc. etc. Every. Single. Time.

If the professor for example were to talk about the Lincoln Douglas debates, which were the most famous debates in American history, he would literally derail his lecture into a spiel on why Abraham Lincoln was evil for being racist and not thinking blacks were equal to whites. If the lecture mentions the essentialism of Plato the professor just has to remind us for the 1000th time how Plato was evil for not thinking women were equal to men. Want to talk about Aristotle's rules of bimodal logic? Yeah, let's digress and talk about how he was evil for thinking slavery was ok.

Now dont get the wrong idea, I do not condone sexism, racism, slavery and do not believe that we should justify the evils of the past. Certain flaws and vices of historical personages weren't excusable even for their time in history because basic empathy and not being a sadist should be sufficient to make certain crimes abhorrent no matter what time in history, which is why I dont agree with exonerating Jackson nor Columbus because both committed crimes that amounted to genocide, and even during their time had critics; Jackson's decision to expel the 5 Native Nations was in direct contravention of a Supreme Court case from John Marshal himself, and Columbus' crimes were criticized by even Catholic friars during that time period such as Bartholomew de la Cases. I am not saying we completely exonerate every misdeed and atrocity in history, but I am annoyed when one can't even mention an idea or contribution relevant to the subject matter without going off on tangents about how the discoverer or originator of this idea was evil.

While im not here to defend racism or sexism or slavery we have to be real here too: with the exception of the last century, which is very recently in the span of human history, literally every society and every people practiced slavery, had levels of xenophobia and prejudice towards outsiders that would count as racism today, and didnt think men were equal to women because feminism wasn't a thing back then and literally every species in the animal kingdom has inequality between the sexes. To expect Aristotle or Plato or Seneca to magically have views that perfectly align with our own today is very sanctimonious and holding our ancestors to a standard that is honestly unfair given their time. Lincoln was definitely a racist, but during that time in history Lincoln was actually very enlightened and far ahead of others morally and considering the society he grew up in was actually more virtuous and racially tolerant than expected for a white man during that time and place. I dont think it's fair for modern Americans to retroactively cancel him and excoriate him for views that were very very very tame and even enlightened for its context back then just because we of today have the privilege of growing up in a society made more racially open and tolerant because of sacrifices we never made but enjoy the fruits of. I can't guarantee if I was alive during Lincoln's time I wouldn't be racist, and if I grew up in a society saturated with white supremacy propaganda where the only blacks I ever met were slaves I too would think whites are superior to blacks. If someone made a comment to me during that time like "look at how the white man conquered the earth, invented calculus, gave us Newton and Laplace, and built the modern world while the negro lives in mud huts wearing loin cloths and are slaves" there would be no way for me to be able to disagree because all propaganda plus the state of affairs of the world during that time would be confirmatory evidence for a racist paradigm.

We take it for granted now but slavery was only outlawed in the beginning of the 1800s and was only fully enforced in every nation by the middle of the 20th century, meaning for all of human history slavery was normal and existed in different forms. Knowing that I dont think its fair to rip on Aristotle and Seneca for not being against slavery when really abolitionism as a concept and idea never existed until way later into the 19th century; before that it was a normal way of life and even religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam allowed it and never outlawed it, meaning that even the enlightened religious sages and prophets back then didnt consider it a problem. For Aristotle, a man living in 4th century Greece BC to not align his moral positions with a radical abolitionist idea that only really took off 22 centuries later in 19th century Europe and America is being way too critical and unfair, and the constant prefacing every damn mention of ethos, pathos and logos with an excoriation of Aristotle for being ok with slavery back in time when the whole world was ok with it is just plain presentist and shortsighted, arrogant even as if the professor himself wouldn't have been a slave owner had he been alive during that time. I know for a fact that my ancestors owned many white slaves taken prisoner from the Balkans, as they were Ottoman soldiers and a lot of the white ancestry and white genes I have embarrassingly comes from the frequent rape and owning of concubines and sex slaves my ottoman ancestors took from prisoners of the Balkans and Eastern Europe. I know slavery is a bad thing, but I would be getting cocky and self righteous now if I acted like I wouldn't have owned slaves back when it was normal and considered as normal as owning a pet.

I recognize that sexism is a controversial thing, but we have to be honest here and lay some facts down. Men and women clearly owing to biological differences are distinct and have differences that manifest naturally, just as every species in the animal kingdom possesses levels of sexual dimorphism that vary across species. Humans are a lot less sexually dimorphic compared just about every species in the animal kingdom, but there are still differences your average ancient average Joe would notice and knowing how humans are very essentialist in nature and attribute differences to discrete categories and intrinsic natures its not hard to see how sexist societies would emerge. Clearly we know now that nurture, environment, sexism and telling women they are inferior to men augments differences, which confirms more that men>>>women, which creates a positive feedback loop that gains ubiquity as it seems obvious or a universal fact that men and women are different entirely by nature, with no nurture or environment playing a part. We take it for granted that the nurture and environment playing a part in differences between groups of people, or that large variance exists in groups so stereotypes are stupid, we take it for granted that those are very modern ways of viewing groups that was a strong reaction to the Nazis extreme nature argument (see Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" for more info). Your average Joe isn't going to think highly of women in an already patriarchal society that demeaned women to the point that their performance is far inferior to men, and while we know now that this is confirmation bias as women are assumed to have been inferior thousands of years ago because of the differences that already existed in nature but were blown way out of proportion and exaggerated and exacerbated by sexist societies, it's unfair to expect a 4th century Greek to view women the way feminists today expect. It's just unrealistic and shaming Aristotle for thinking differently feels like strong virtue signaling.

I really really hope no one gets the idea that im ok with racism, sexism, slavery etc. I just dont like the moral posturing, virtue signaling and constant need to character assassinate everyone from back then whenever any idea is brought up whose originator wasn't a 100% woke liberal by 21st century standards. I'm not even saying you have to like Aristotle or Lincoln or whatever because if you find their views disgusting no matter the time in history I can't stop you; but if no one is directly talking about them but their ideas why should we derail every mention of an idea relevant to the course with a tangent disparaging them when it doesn't even have anything to do with the course. What does Aristotle being sexist or owning slaves have anything to do with ethos pathos or logos being taught? Why is it relevant that Plato was sexist when discussing essentialism and why must we lecture about seneca being evil for owning slaves when the topic is stoicism? it gets annoying and is ruining my enjoyment of this class.

And lastly one more thing. I said this already but ill say it again: I really dont like Jackson or Columbus and consider both to be despicable monsters even for their time. that said if the topic is about a contribution either figure made, such as Jackson killing the 2nd National Bank or Columbus' voyages to the Americas, I dont need to be constantly reminded that they were evil people because when discussing contributions that whole issue is moot. I dont care if Jackson was or wasn't evil when talking about his war against the bank because its irrelevant and doesn't add anything to the discussion. I shouldn't have be lectured on why Columbus was an evil monster, a position which btw I agree with, every time we discuss his voyages only for geographical purposes and academic purposes. In science courses I take we never had to derail every mention of natural selection and the theory of evolution with a preface about how racist Darwin was, or in my statistics courses the professors dont waste time from lecture condemning Karl Pearson for being a racist every time we mention the Pearson coefficient. only in this class we must hear shoved down our throat the same points about this person or that person being evil when a contribution is discussed.

You're right.

Impressive writing and I'm glad you're getting into some humanities courses, salad! Better than being the "competent barbarian," atrophied in all but the push-button finger.

I personally think cancel culture & "presentism" makes centrists into conservatives and conservatives into alt-righters but that's just me.

In the RIP Kobe Bryant thread, before the first page was even done, someone had to bring up race. WP is eaten up with this stuff and I'm rather glad you posted this, though I don't think it will get many reads.

"Cancel Culture" is how the weak bully the strong.

The past is the past for a reason. The past should not be altered or how else can it be a road map to a better future? People try and succeed in canceling out, changing facts of the past all the time. The US is notorious for it...

It sounds like this professor doesn't trust that you'll interpret the past in a way that he finds acceptable. He's not teaching an unbiased Humanities course, he's teaching, "The World According to X." That's a big trigger for me. For better or worse, an individual should be presented with the unaltered facts and be given freedom of thought. That used to be what universities were about. Increasingly, they are becoming bot factories.

Ditto.

It's completely ridiculous to judge historical figures outside their context. The current generation will find that for themselves... in a few decades

Maybe we should burn down art museums and libraries, close down the Opera House and the Philarmonic - it's a well-known fact all those people were morally bankrupt

I've never heard of "Cancel Culture" or "Presentism".

Shame on academia for this pompous and ignorant attitude.

Boo.

"Cancel Culture" is essentially boycotting a person because of his or her problematic behaviors or actions -- such as not seeing a popular movie because one of the actors once used the "n-word" in high school.

"Presentism" (emphasis on first syllable) is the "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts" -- such as putting down the pioneers because many of the wives were only 14 years old when they had their first children.

They may as well call it "Cancel Life", because without scaffolding on the backs of others, society wouldn't be where we are today. We would have no freedoms at all.

I would like to think that we can achieve a good balance between honoring the contributions to society of historic figures, but still acknowledge that they weren't necessarily great people.

Sounds to me that your lecturer is more interested in advertising his/her presumed moral superiority over Aristotle than in helping students learn from the delicate and sophisticated system of thought he developed.

But this is from the academic culture that took Marx’s concept of ‘class struggle’ and degenerated it into ‘conflict theory’
So what can we realistically expect?

In some cases, "Canceling" someone or something might be appropriate, such as when the Hollywood entertainment media companies all "cancelled" any open reference to shows and movies featuring Bill Cosby.

Last edited by Fnord on 31 Jan 2020, 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly. ^

Further, I hope everyone acknowledges that no one is necessarily "great people" -- not even the activists of today.

We're all human and fallible.

If only the history classes in grade school would amplify on how the "Founding Fathers" were slave owners who believed that ordinary citizens needed an elitist institution like the Electoral College to keep them from electing just any ordinary person from off the street.

But I digress.

Unfortunately, "Cancel Culture" also white-washes the flaws of popular historic figures to re-enforce the notion that all of their actions were undertaken for noble motives, when actually most of them were greedy, womanizing capitalists.

I see both sides of that. Cancelling does sound appropriate in his case because he's a disgusting SOB, but at the same time I don't endorse censorship or restricting freedom of the press. It's one of those difficult Catch 22's. The other actors from The Cosby Show or Cosby's other ventures shouldn't be penalised by lost royalties etc., from having the shows discontinued and their work forgotten. Likewise, we don't "cancel" World War 2 or Hitler or Mussolini or other vile people from our classrooms because they are learning material, not to be forgotten. Trump went around grabbing women by their ... privates ... and that was sensationalised in the media with activist movements but yet he was still elected president. There are so many double standards it's hard to be consistent in the cancelling of anyone's past.

I digress too. Sorry for derailing but this is a new concept to me.

Those shows are still available (just not on commercial TV), and references to them can be found in IMDB and Wikipedia.

I hope the other actors can still earn royalties in that regard. I also wish profits from his shows could go toward victims' rights organisations, or to the victims themselves in civil suits. It's such a complicated issue. I actually have a Bill Cosby LP from the 80s where he's just telling jokes. I should sell it and send the money to a local victims' group.