[ SECRET POST #2539 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2539 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 066 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Again, I don't think making a judgment about someone means making a judgment that they're evil or morally irredeemable - it's a judgment of one aspect of their character, one part of who they are, and I accept and agree with the idea that there's usually greater moral complexity, that this one idea or attitude is not the sum of their person. But I think we can judge those ideas and we can judge them for subscribing to those ideas. I do think it's a good point about what is possible for someone within a given time and culture to think (but, in this specific context, I think it was possible for someone to come to at least a more nuanced understanding of how colonialism operated - and, in general, I'm very leery about giving people passes on those grounds). I completely agree that there were tons of awesome folk back then (and I've also been reading period fiction for a long time), and I also think that a lot of them had flaws. Really, I think all awesome folk, all folk in general, have flaws - we're human beings, we are all flawed. I just want to recognize those flaws for what they are, especially when they lead to harmful political and moral policies in general. There's hardly anyone who you can't judge in some ways - and I'm okay with that.

I mean, to give an example (that I know you'll have some familiarity with) - there's very little doubt in my mind that GK Chesterton, later in his life, was an anti-Semite - at the very least, he wrote some things that are undeniably anti-Semitic after the war. I also admire him, I love his writing, and I think that he was a good person. He was a good person, who was also an anti-Semite, and I judge him for that. It doesn't mean dismissing him - it's a nuanced understanding and acknowledgment of his flaws. And I don't approve of those flaws, any more than I approve other English people supporting imperialism merely because it was the consensus at the time. But I still love him as a writer.

This shit is complicated. But that doesn't mean we can't come to some kind of conclusion about it, altho one always tempered by our own humility and knowledge of our limits.

[dreemyweird]

dmw ought to go to sleep so shall try to keep it brief.

IA that judging an aspect of somebody's character!=judging them as a person, and that awesome people always have flaws. But there are flaws that it makes sense to judge an individual person for (e.g. Chesterton's anti-Semitism - because anti-Semitism wasn't a given in his time, it was already a pretty dodgy belief to hold), and then there are flaws it makes sense to judge the person's time period for. And it's not like a person is not a part of a time period and does not take part in shaping its morality, but the responsibility they hold is infinitely smaller than that of somebody with similar beliefs who lives a couple of centuries later.

That is to say, in my opinion, an average decent Victorian is roughly translatable to an average decent modern person in terms of how morally justifiable their attitudes are (even when we're talking about racial prejudices). Which is why I judge 'racist' Victorians no more than 'neutral' modern folks, though my opinion of the colonial imperialist attitude in general is pretty bad.

It is like taking a particular part of a spectrum and viewing it as a spectrum on its own, really. Whilst in theory I know that it ranges from "sort of blah" to "godawfully horrible", the "sort of blah" shade is essentially equivalent to that of "decent" from the other part of the spectrum I am currently in.

Idk if that made sense. Why do I always invade all the Sherlock Holmes threads ever to have discussions on history and ethics :D I love Chesterton both as a person and as a writer, btw, so <33

relevant

[dreemyweird]

yes I'll be posting these everywhere now why are you asking.

[(Anonymous)]

That is to say, in my opinion, an average decent Victorian is roughly translatable to an average decent modern person in terms of how morally justifiable their attitudes are (even when we're talking about racial prejudices). Which is why I judge 'racist' Victorians no more than 'neutral' modern folks, though my opinion of the colonial imperialist attitude in general is pretty bad.

I certainly agree that people are pretty much the same in different times - I definitely don't think that we're more moral now (although part of that is that I think there's still plenty of massive problems in our culture). But yeah, it's complicated. I just don't think that you can give people that much of a pass for their culture - you certainly have to take into account the circumstances and the surrounding context and the different possibilities - no one, after all, acts entirely freely and in the way that they would choose - but I don't think it's ultimately an entirely different spectrum of morality. We're not that far apart though.

It might also be the case that I think it's different for the Victorians than it might be for a different time period - at the end of the day I just don't think the gap between us and the Victorians is that great & it's much harder for me to give them credit for the difference of time than for, you know, the Renaissance or whatever. Maybe that's the other side of the historical fiction thing.

Idk if that made sense. Why do I always invade all the Sherlock Holmes threads ever to have discussions on history and ethics :D I love Chesterton both as a person and as a writer, btw, so <33

Haha, I don't know why but I'm definitely down with it as well!