You would’ve hated your heroes: Why history’s great men seem so morally deficient

[kiva]

And, I add, some great women too.

Your historical heroes would have seen the world very differently from you and me. In particular, they probably harbored an array of unpleasant prejudices:

Idolize Winston Churchill for standing up to Nazi Germany? Great, but best to ignore his views on those further to the east: “I hate Indians,” he wrote. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Virginia Woolf is a literary hero – but better not dwell on what she said about Jews (despite being married to one): “I do not like the Jewish voice; I do not like the Jewish laugh.” Love John Lennon for his music, and admire him for his pacifism? Great — but we must now cringe at the way he mocked the mentally and physically handicapped while onstage (painfully captured in surviving concert footage). On the other hand, he stopped short of D.H. Lawrence, who fantasized about constructing “a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace” for disposing of “the sick, the halt, and the maimed” (who, he imagined, “would smile me a weary thanks” for disposing of them). And what about Albert Einstein? When he wasn’t inventing relativity, he was fighting for nuclear disarmament and speaking out for human rights. (All terrific, of course.) But you really don’t want to see the demeaning letters he wrote to his first wife in the months leading up to their divorce.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/01/you_wouldve_hated_your_heroes_why_historys_great_men_seem_so_morally_deficient/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

An interesting article that address the 'why did people say/do those things?' question.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. This is a theme I've thought about over the years.

That the proof of the world becoming a better place is when we can look back in disgust on things that even the best people of their day thought or did. And that the proof of the world having improved in the future will be how our descendants will look back in disgust on things we're doing today, things we take for granted day in and day out as 'just being the way things are'.

[elias49]

9. Humbling. nt

[kiva]

11. I sometime entertain myself wondering what future generations

will see as our moral flaws. It's inevitable, and I take heart from the fact that it is an indication that we are, generally, becoming more morally aware. I think that's part of the reason we tend be so horrified when we hear of violent "uncivilized" acts, we tend to think that everyone is on board with the small world, everyone our neighbors idea and forget that isn't a universal idea.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. I think the easiest examples of such

are simply our propensity towards violence, both to other humans and animals. Spending money on killing people, while denying money to keep people alive. Factory farming techniques that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered 'humane', and the slaughter of cetaceans and other larger life forms on land and water both. On down the road, eventually, probably also simply the fact that we eat other animals, especially those with more intelligence, such as pigs. I'd like to think that monetary greed will also be considered barbaric in future, and that a sort of new puritanism casts scorn on those who consume excessively while others struggle.

[kiva]

13. I think you're right about factory farming techniques.

I'm not sure about spending money on killing people, assuming you're referring to various forms of warfare. I think wars will continue no matter the level of moral development humans achieve, mostly because there will always be the fact (or perception) that someone else hasn't attained that level.

[Igel]

2. Of course.

But what you're saying is that while they've done something great, they weren't perfect so they're inferior to you.

Heroism is specific to a context and an event. It's not a claim to moral greatness. Einstein's a hero for one relatively narrow reason; I wouldn't want to pattern my entire life after him. Washington fought against great odds as part of a freedom movement; that it wasn't supported by 100% of the population, that it didn't include 100% of the population is, quite frankly, beside the point.

There's something called the halo effect. If the outside of your doctor's office is well kept, if the waiting room is proper and well appointed, then he has to be a good doctor. If you know an employee supports the same charitable causes you support, then he's a good person and perceived to be a better engineer, better bookkeeper, better carpenter.

It works the same way with bad things. If a doctor who might save your life is a wife beater you'll discount his skills. If a politician went to a blackface party 45 years ago when he was 15, it says little about him now but really has nothing to say about whether or not his ability to vote on a trade treaty. Halos can be good or bad.

The thing is, they're logically unrelated traits. Our little sluggish brains can't accept that things are unrelated. So we relate politics and competence in engineering, person life with surgical skills, racial attitudes to economics or taste in decorating an office with expertise in diagnosing and treating disease.

We also rather like when our idols develop clay feet. It lets us off the hook. We don't have to rise to their level in any sphere of life because, well, they're crappier then I am. In other words, I'm better than Einstein, than Washington, than Franklin--I'm smarter, braver, more loyal, more innovative. For logically unrelated reasons. I like feeling superior to others and looking down at them, relishing how great I am.

It's why character "assassination" attempts against current heroes are very much unwelcome and irrationally fought against. We foolishly think our heroes must be perfect. The result of that foolishness is, well, justification for yet more foolishness.

[Maeve]

16. I think your next-to-last paragraph expalins much

Some of the "character 'assassination'" attempts are more about feeling superior than anything about the person attacked; and so not so irrationally fought against. There has to be balance.

Heroes are humans who rise above the pack; lesser humans want to drag them back down so they don't feel inferior. Instead, we need to see them for what they are and use their achievements to take us to greater heights. Stand on the shoulders of giants and you see even further.

[frankfacts]

3. My heroes have all been assassinated

[seveneyes]

4. Heros never die

Trying to send you messages, still choking on goodbyes
And I wonder why

[AverageJoe90]

5. There is some truth here, no doubt.

With that said, though, I've often found that, sometimes, modern historians may, from time to time, overlook key pieces of context that help tell the story. For example, Abraham Lincoln, great as he was, was, unfortunately, a bit casually racist by today's standards. But some people look at certain parts of his 1858 speech debating Stephen Douglas, and they think, "Was this guy a hypocrite?", even though he only said these things to placate the RWers of the day.

[Nye Bevan]

6. And Washington and Jefferson, of course, were slaveholding racists.

Moreover, Jefferson raped his slaves.

[LWolf]

7. I don't have heroes.

I don't understand people's craving for them.

[UTUSN]

8. R#4 & k n/t

[PatrickforO]

10. Everyone is flawed. Everyone.

For us to pretend otherwise is to ignore our humanness, but flaws or not, none of us are excused from doing the best we can.

[Bettie]

14. I can look at the good in a person and accept that there are bad pieces as well

The bad doesn't negate the good.

We're all flawed. We're human.

Also, we need to accept that cultural context is important. If the prevailing belief of the segment of society "Historical Heroic Figure X" lived in was, to our modern eyes, unacceptable, do we then declare that his or her contributions are null and void because of this other behavior?

My personal opinion is that we accept that they were human just as we are, flawed and imperfect. We cannot change what is done. We can only move forward and hope we do better.

Some day, people will look at our time and wonder how we could have held some of the positions we do now. How we could say some of the things we do now. I hope they realize that we were acting within the context of our society, not out of malice or evil (well, in most cases).

[Tom Ripley]

15. Lawrence, despite his talent and influence, was always a miserable prick

just a thoroughly disagreeable man