Presentism

[Misson]

I was just this morning reading an article on Sam Houston which was suggesting that Houston was great, but he kept slaves and that was a bad thing. Now, I'm not suggesting that slavery is good or anything, but in Houston's time, it wasn't necessarily considered totally bad. So I thought that the author of the article was making an illegitimate judgment based on his current temporal state creating an error on his part which I hoped he might some day overcome to the benefit of readers everywhere in better understanding the past. And then thought no more of it.

Until I found myself reading about the same thing later this morning in a book called Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. Apparently, according to Gilbert, I had noticed that the Houston article author was engaging in something called Presentism, a label of which I had been unaware until that point. Since presentism relates to our little hobby, though, I'm posting this because I thought the whole thing was kinda' interesting. Let me quote the book.

"Historians use the word presentism to describe the tendency to judge historical figures by contemporary standards. As much as we all despise racism and sexism, these isms have only recently been considered moral turpitudes, and thus condemning Thomas Jefferson for keeping slaves or Sigmund Freud for patronizing women is a bit like arresting someone today for having driven without a seat belt in 1923. And yet, the temptation to view the past through the lens of the present is nothing short of overwhelming. As the president of the American Historical Association noted, 'Presentism admits of no ready solution; it turns out to be very difficult to exit from modernity.' [L. Hunt, "Against Presentism," Perspectives 40 (2002)]" (Gilbert, 161-2)

What is interesting about all this to me (and perhaps you) is that we as re-enactors have to deal with this in the guise of the public - who mostly think that pirates wore bucket boots, bright sashes, hooks and possibly walked around with a dazed look, a swishy gait and their hands roaming aimlessly about, holding on to their long cuffs with all but their middle and index fingers which were extended for no apparent good reason. We must also consider that we ourselves may tend to fail to enact against our own present moment prejudice when presenting "living history."

In fact, this all just seems to me to come back to one of my favorite hobby horses, perception, which I think makes it all but impossible for us to do anything remotely true to anyone but ourselves and our little world of mental ideas and constructs.

But I am curious what others think, if only to try to be true to something outside myself.

[Capt. Sterling]

That's why studying the mindset of the time period is just as important as studying the objects, i.e, clothing, weapons, ships, etc.

[Zephaniah W Nash]

This happens upon a pet peeve of my own. Away back when I was in high school -- and apparently even more so now -- the Confederate States are portrayed as unremittingly evil because they supposedly were "fighting to keep slaves," and that the Enlightened North was fighting solely to end slavery. They weren't. Neither side was wholly in the right, nor wholly in the wrong.

More than once have I been accused of racism for daring to suggest that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and slavery alone.

Of course, there is the other side of the coin which tries to portray Southerners as misunderstood and mistreated innocents. This is just as wrong as the so-called "politically correct" history books, and neither tale does justice to the actual history.

End of rant.

[BriarRose Kildare]

Very good point and an understandable pet peeve, Zephaniah W Nash. I agree with ya whole heartedly. Especially since my Father's family is from the South and my Mother's is from the North. As a American Civil War buff, I too become upset by the way it has been taught in our schools.

And one should take in to consideration the time and mind set of the population during a given period.

For instance a very good friend of mine when she was in high school would not participate in the ranting sand ravings of the teachers mind set on Al Capone. When asked why she would not participate in the assignment of such a Villain her response was: "Well, may be because he was my Uncle."

Needless to say, the teacher dropped the assignment.

Every era believes itself to be the modern age. It is the ability of a true historian to be able to look at an age unbiased that makes that person a true historian.

[Red Cat Jenny]

Mission..you have a great head for musing.

My thoughts are that those who practice "presentism" * ah another modern catch phrase that goes with epstein barr and all the other trendy stuff*

are simply people who fail to be objective. They fail to look at at a thing for what it is.

Consider this. Grab a magazine and find a clothing or car ad (Mercedes with that slightly filtered light, outside the Ritz in some tropical locale. Tuxedoed passenger exits and swishes into a room full of crystal and candles. Everyone is pretty. )

Sure..thats gonna affect the way you see the item. For most people "I gotta have that because its soooo classy"

Ok thats simple marketing..

A better example

Page over to a clothing ad..draped on a 6 foot plus model whos human imperfections have been airbrushed out even though shes on the top 10 most beautiful people list. Shes surrounded by things which compliment the outfit. "I must have that dress.."

Now picture the car in a cut rate supermarket parking lot on a drab day.

Picture the dress on a hanger..yeah they're still nice..but they feel different.

Now you are looking at a thing for what it is. Not what you have personally been afected by.

If you are looking for purity - realism, you have to stop being affected by whats around it including the present and your own experiences. Especially of you didn't exist when it did.

Presentism is just a fancy way to say you're not being objective.

[Misson]

True. As I noted, it hearkens back to my favorite buzzword: perception. The only real difference I have with you is that I can't quite see how anyone can be objective. But then I will take the side of "no possible way" when we go off and discuss if there are things that are truly factual in the context of a human mind. There are facts, but we can't rightly access them without spinning, shading or otherwise modifying them to suit our purposes. We can only approximate the "fact" by reaching some form of consensus. (Which is how we've come to have "science," "statistics" and "pop culture.")

For example, I plan to use (if I can remember it that long) an idea that 17th-18th century physician and author William Cockburn suggested in his book An account of the nature, causes, symptoms, and cure of the distempers that are incident to seafaring people. In there (and that is only about a third of the actual title) he recommends a medicine composed primarily of crab's eyes to treat...something (see what I mean about my memory?)...fever, perhaps. And when he ran out of crab's eyes (and who wouldn't, what with the demand?), he switched to the scraped insides of dried seashells.

Now, I plan to use this because it sounds disgusting. (This appeals to modern audiences as I perceive them.) I may even invent a jar full of something that looks like crab's eyes and offer it to the crowd. (And some little jerk in a stripy shirt and knee pants will agree to try it and before I can stop him eat some and get sick causing his parent to sue me for Key West hospital bills.) However, in the context of the late 17th century, it might have been: "Crab's eyes? Yum, love 'em. Can't get enough of 'em," which would explain the difficulty in obtaining them. Except, even then, I am (somewhat humorously, I hope) casting some poor 17th century person in today's language and suggesting they would say, "Yum!" But how can I be trulyobjective about understanding someone who (as I perceive it) thought that the King was deity selected, bathing every so often was a hindrance (or perhaps a luxury) and slops were pretty darned fashionable and/or even comfortable? Not to mention a hundred other perceptions that I don't even know about, except as can be found in books like An account of the nature, causes, symptoms, and cure of the distempers that are incident to seafaring people by William Cockburn, author and eater of crab's eyes.

[MadL]

Where where you last week when I had fever?!!??

(note to self: stock up on crab eyes)

Most common people are so caught up in their daily routines that they judge everything from the paste on today's weights and standards, to have to stop and 'think about it' or as the saying goes "walk a mile in the other person's shoes" is just beyond the average folk. Same holds true for 'future' as for 'past', present a plausible scenario for something in the future but relying upon minute details that may not be 'common knowledge' and you will be refused by most everyone if ALL facts can not be weighed and measured by something common known today. Just think about how many called the Wright Brothers loons even thou their whole concept had been laid out years before by Leonardo Di Vince.

There will always be some people who will never be able to understand history due to their own prejudices or even their own inner anger and hatred. Oddly enough there is still slavery today, and not just blacks. In history slaves where not just blacks either. It is far more easy for them to understand that people used to line up to have leeches put to their skin to heal all that ailed them then to understand that at one time 'owning a person' was viewed no different then owning a horse today. And on the other hand, there are people today that do not undertand the concept of owning a horse, or even a dog. But it really is not so odd when you consider that there are 'holly men' today who preach that 'owning' anything is wrong and have the ability to convince people to give everything they own away...and on the receiving end is the 'holly man' who does not believe in owning anything.

[Red Sea Trade]

I worked for many years in buildings associated with George Washington. Most Americans have an awestruck relationship with ol' GW, but an increasing number were absolutely fixated on his role as a slaveowner.

"Yes", I would invariably reply, "he owned slaves. But I believe he was the most extraordinary man that our nation has ever birthed."

That baffled people. How, if he had unenlightened racial attitudes, could there be ANYTHING redeeming about the man? They took it as a package-- anyone who did not fully agree with them was inherently worthless.

That, in a nutshell, is presentism. I tried to combat it with one simple statement: "Please keep in mind that, in 200 years, Americans of the future will look back at you with the same mixture of disdain and disgust that you feel for General Washington."

Nobody ever believed me, of course. To do so would be to imply that their current preferences, attitudes and mores might actually not last for all time. If I wanted to prove my point it was easy. All I had to do was say "What do you think about your yearbook photo? Is there anything about it that might seem a bit...dated?"

Ah, the cold, wet slap of reality!

[JohnnyTarr]

I love that you all are being so open minded about this subject. I usually don't find such people at work. It is nice to see people that can look at a subject as it really is in the place it is instead of looking at it as we would see it now.

[Misson]

Oddly enough there is still slavery today, and not just blacks. In history slaves where not just blacks either.

Yup. I was recently reading about how Europeans were captured and sold as slaves during Tudor times in the Mediterranean. They would then work the middle eastern ships or be sold to sultans. At one point, the book I was reading noted that they captured a fleet or some such large number of prisoners and that European slaves glutted the market. A capable man was selling for as little as a large onion. (If I had the book, I would give you the exact quote...but I don't.)

Good point about futurism. That was actually Gilbert's point. He was using past "presentism" as a more tangible way to explain the problem with our limited ability to predict future events. He also humorously noted that one only has to go and look at the graphical representations of the future to understand the prevailing norms of the times. For example, the Jetsons is a pretty good representation of the style of the sixties...right down to Jane's bob...only improved by replacing cars with spaceships and maids with robots.

[Capt. Sterling]

Oddly enough there is still slavery today, and not just blacks. In history slaves where not just blacks either.

Very true... both William Red Wake and my character have backgrounds as white slaves during the GAoP. Sterling was held for three years before being ransomed, in Algiers. William and I are currently working out a "discussion" between the two characters regarding their different experiences, his positive, Sterling's far from positive... tis how he lost his eye. A number of good books about covering the topic.

Now the interesting thing about it is, when I mentioned that there was both black and white slavery occurring during the 17th/18th century... the African Amercian kids in my classes called me a liar... "whites were never slaves"... boy did I blow them out of the water....

[Red Sea Trade]

Excellent point about the Jetsons. Yes, the "future" always seems to look a lot like the present in popular culture. In addition, the "past" (especially in movies) is always laid out in terms of our present.

A perfect example: Any American movie of the past 30 years set in the 18th century (or pretty much any other century) always has one crucial component. The more sympathetic the characters, the more modern they look and behave. The villains may wear tricorns, high collars, funny pants and wigs, but the hero goes bareheaded and walks around without a coat or waistcoat and has his shirt undone. He is, we are shown, not "really" old-fashioned, he's just a guy like us. He's cool, not like those "squares" in the funny clothes.

Heaven forbid that anyone should attempt to show that, underneath those odd clothes, were men just as cool as (or cooler than) we are.

[Red-Handed Jill]

There's also the other side of the coin - the belief that human nature has changed over the years and that "back in the day" people were different than they are now. Folks read about the gladiator and other combat for entertainment during the latter part of the Roman empire and exclaim "what barbarians - we could never do anything like that now!" but have no qualms about seeing two men (or women) beat the crap out of each other for money in a boxing ring (or cage match.) The more things change, the more they are the same.

Eh - I'm digressing but wanted to bring up another side of this argument.

[Misson]

A perfect example:  Any American movie of the past 30 years set in the 18th century (or pretty much any other century) always has one crucial component.  The more sympathetic the characters, the more modern they look and behave.  The villains may wear tricorns, high collars, funny pants and wigs, but the hero goes bareheaded and walks around without a coat or waistcoat and has his shirt undone.  He is, we are shown, not "really" old-fashioned, he's just a guy like us.  He's cool, not like those "squares" in the funny clothes.

This is accurate, but it's done on purpose. Most movies try to have one character that the audience can empathize with. If there is no such character, the movie is less likely to be accessible to modern audiences. So it is also less likely to be a hit and thus it will lose money and...well, Hollywood isn't in business to give us accurate portrayals and lose their shirts.

As for human nature... I realize now that I chose a poor example in picking slavery (only because I was reading that thing about Houston and thinking about the exact thing that I later came across in Stumbling on Happiness). It's a poor choice because we're mixing morals and mores and thus the topic has gotten off track. Although, morals are definitely impacted by mores. Thus I would agree if you said, "Keeping and beating a slave" would likely be considered wrong in any century, but "Keeping and treating a slave well" might not be. (Again, not condoning slavery, but you probably see what I'm getting at.)

And thus, we come to "truth." Like "facts" I do not believe we can in our minds accurately perceive pure "truth" - we colour it. There is "truth" but it is outside of human perception and thus is also reached by consensus. So what is true to one culture or age is not necessarily true to another. (So let's talk about Global Warming. )

[Cheeky Actress]

Now the interesting thing about it is, when I mentioned that there was both black and white slavery occurring during the 17th/18th century... the African Amercian kids in my classes called me a liar... "whites were never slaves"... boy did I blow them out of the water....

The Captain is correct. The Children in his American Social Studies class were completely taken aback when Bess Hagerty (the Archangel's indentured servant) showed up!

I fear I may have over done it a bit, though. The Captain had to attended to another class while I did my 'discussion' with the children. By the time Captain Sterling returned the children were racing up to him asking all sorts of questions. "You don't let her have any friends?" "Why don't you let her sleep on a bed?" "Why can't she eat with you'll at the table?"

I don't think Captain Sterling was prepared for the flurry of questions or the verbal attack these kids laid on him. Yet, it did get them to think and ask question about what they just learned...

This is a good thing....

[lady snow]

not in pyracy, but at my home resuch that qn faire - i've heard different commentsa about the historical figures and their doings and wardrobes and stuff thtat was offensive to their modern day standrds like they took afense that htere were wenches about the shire. we wanted to out asign up over the gates that read 'welcome to the renaissance - political correctness doesn't cme around for another 500 years'

[Red-Handed Jill]

I think Political Correctness has been around in one form or another since the dawn of time. There's always been one thing or another that just wasn't done or said.

[Red Bess]

A perfect example:  Any American movie of the past 30 years set in the 18th century (or pretty much any other century) always has one crucial component.  The more sympathetic the characters, the more modern they look and behave.  The villains may wear tricorns, high collars, funny pants and wigs, but the hero goes bareheaded and walks around without a coat or waistcoat and has his shirt undone.  He is, we are shown, not "really" old-fashioned, he's just a guy like us.  He's cool, not like those "squares" in the funny clothes.

This is accurate, but it's done on purpose. Most movies try to have one character that the audience can empathize with. If there is no such character, the movie is less likely to be accessible to modern audiences. So it is also less likely to be a hit and thus it will lose money and...well, Hollywood isn't in business to give us accurate portrayals and lose their shirts.

Good point. Historical figure or not, the audience needs to feel some empathy with a main character if the filmmaker wants them to like him or her. That's why in "historical" films, the audience is more likely to cheer for the hero if they are "ahead of their time" (ie - a strong female in an age where women were men's property) than one that behaves in the conventions of their time.

History isn't always pretty, simple or even consistent. It's always viewed in the light of hind-sight and those who portray history are scrutinized for this reason. It is a tribute to the skill of re-enactors who are able to perform history without letting their own, modern influences affect their behavior.

[Capt. Sterling]

Having worked on a number of "historical" films, I have run into too many directors who claim..."history just isn't exciting enough on its own." They seem to feel that it needs help....their version is always so much better... so they say. But to give them their due, they aren't out to teach history, they're out to make a movie that appeals to the masses and make a ton of money off of it.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

This is a huge percentage of the reason I am pursuing my teaching certification! Thinking of then in terms of now is how things get so screwed up.

Bo

[Red Sea Trade]

I disagree that the hero or heroine has to be modern to be successful. Most European period films avoid this trap, yet it is never difficult to figure out who the hero is. I think that American filmmakers just take the path of least resistance--instead of character development, they use visual shorthand.

I have always maintained that a real, authentic film about the early life of George Washington would absolutely blow peoples' minds. He was the First Action Hero-- huge, macho, romantic, immensely strong, recklessly brave, desired by women. He traveled on secret missions, fought Indians and Frenchmen, swam icy rivers, dodged bullets at extreme close range and (literally) swept the ladies of Virginia off their feet. He was James Bond in knee breeches, but nobody has the guts to portray him as such.

James Bond keeps his jacket on when he fights, yet we know he is the hero. Couldn't some brave director try the same thing with an earlier era?

[Misson]

I disagree that the hero or heroine has to be modern to be successful.  Most European period films avoid this trap, yet it is never difficult to figure out who the hero is.  I think that American filmmakers just take the path of least resistance--instead of character development, they use visual shorthand.

Ah, but compare the box office of most European films to American films. In addition to everything else, European films are often made with a smaller budget and can thus make less and still be successful.

I think your George Washington story could well be made, but probably on the History Channel or possibly as an Indie production. Although we have certain expectations tied to Indie productions as well, and this probably wouldn't meet them. Not that's right...but it's the public perception. (Alas, public perception = consensus = "truth." As opposed to truth.) Such a production would, for better or worse, likely have smaller battle scenes and more genuine acting and character study. Actually, that would probably be better for quality of the film.

I enjoy watching movies like that myself, although I confess most History Channel biopics I have seen are subject to similar inaccuracies based on what I've read about their subjects. (I await the John Paul Jones release to DVD so I can get it on Netflix and compare the product to what I have read about the man.) I really enjoy well-made foreign films, too. (I just saw an Iranian film that was almost entirely character driven called Children of Heaven about a poor Iranian boy who loses his sister's shoes and then has to share his shoes with her on the sly to avoid his father's wrath. Actually, re-reading that, it doesn't sound like much, but it was absolutely charming and recommended to those who don't mind subtitles. As an aside to this aside, I was talking to the librarian locally and she noted that people frequently brought such films back and complained about them only because they had subtitles. So the library started putting large pink stickers on foreign films with subtitles to warn such people. )

But in a big B.O. movie, likely to reach the most people, I think you would have a hard row to hoe in today's movie environment with your Father of the Country flick. Movies usually need to have some differentiating factor (like mammoth special effects or some controversial stand) to make them worth the expense of mounting a large scale production. And even then, most of them don't break even. Look at how pirates floundered for decades until Johnny Depp added "rock star" to the notion of pirate. We can't know for sure, but I'll bet without Captain Jack, POTC:CotBP would have been just another Cutthroat Island as far as the numbers go.

[Red Sea Trade]

  Movies usually need to have some differentiating factor (like mammoth special effects or some controversial stand) to make them worth the expense of mounting a large scale production.

Ah, but what could be more controversial than the Father of Our Country kicking ass and getting the girl?

[Sjöröveren]

Continuing on how presentism applies to reenacting...

I used to work at a "history village" type of thing depicting the white settlement of Minnesota. We almost never brought up the relationship with the Indians, even though there is a Dakota Reservation less than 5 miles away. One of the guys who worked there made it a point to occasionally refer to the "local savages" or "heathens" when he felt that the audience would be receptive to having their preconceptions messed with.

They'd usually reply with "Why do you call them that?" "They're called Native Americans!" and the like.

He'd respond "God made them savages, not I. Why would I call them anything else?" and "They aren't Christian, so they must certainly be heathens. I pity them." and so on. He did it with such simple innocence and honesty, that I doubt he never truly offended anyone. Most of the time he was able to engage them in a discussion that brought them around to the realization that (duh!) things were different then! If you just tell someone "things were different then" they don't think any further than "Yeah, they sure didn't have much stuff." But if you help bring them to their own realization, it seems to be more meaningful.

Another case in point. My usual presentation is about Medicine circa 1800. I often will use the death of George Washington as teaching point. His being repeatedly bled, blistered and purged over the course of several days until he finally died seems, to us today, as nothing short of torture. Yet I remind my audience that this wasn't just some slob dying, it was George Washington. He got the finest medical treatment available in the country. State of the art equipment, practices and methods, all the best that could be had. And that meant bleeding, blistering and purging. And if this seems barbaric, just think what folks in the 22nd century will think about organ transplants. "You mean to tell me that you took the hearts of dead people and put them into patients?!? What were you thinking? Why didn't you just grow a new heart like normal people?"

Alas, I suppose we will always assume that we have figured it all out, and those who came before us didn't know what we do simply because they were stupid.

[Misson]

And thus, we come to "truth." Like "facts" I do not believe we can in our minds accurately perceive pure "truth" - we colour it. There is "truth" but it is outside of human perception and thus is also reached by consensus. So what is true to one culture or age is not necessarily true to another.

You know, I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that I should retract that statement about facts. There are facts that we can perceive fairly accurately, although the more specifically we try to account for them, the less accurate we are. So, if you were to say, "PiP occurred in Key West in 2007" I'd have to agree that that was a fact. If you were to try and pin down a more specific fact, however, and say, "PiP started on November 30th." we could quibble. For some people it started then. For me it really started on the 27th. For others, it started that day PiP ended in 2006 and they started planning 2007. So maybe I have a point still. Perhaps I should argue with myself about this some more and report back on any decisions, accords or agreements reached.

Sjöröveren's post reminded me of something I read in Gilbert's book that I sort of referenced above and found mildly amusing when I read it because has a certain ring to it about predicting the future. (Which is startlingly similar to understanding and representing the past when we are talking about present bias.)

"Most reasonably sized libraries have a shelf of futurist tomes from the 1950s with titles such as Into the Atomic Age and The World of Tomorrow. If you leaf through a few of them, you quickly notice that each of these books says more about the times in which it was written than about the times it was meant to foretell. [Note: this is also true about books written in the present about the past, although it is not as obvious. I have noticed it in the medicine books I am reading. ]...You will...notice that some things are missing. Then men don't carry babies, the women don't carry briefcases, the children don't have pierced eyebrows or nipples, and the mice go squeak instead of click. There are no skateboarders or panhandlers, no smartphones or smartdrinks, no spandex, latex, Gore-Tex, Amex, Fed-Ex, or Wal~Mart. What's more, all the people of African, Asian and Hispanic origin seem to have missed the future entirely. Indeed, what makes these drawings so charming is that they are utterly, fabulously, and ridiculously wrong." (Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness, p. 123-4)

And so, like the future drawings of the 50's, it can also be what is not in re-enactments like Sjöröveren mentioned that can be misleading. That was the astounding thing about Terry Gilliam movies about the medieval period. Not that they are accurate either, but they added a new element to Britain's past that you intuitively believe was present in real life that hadn't been present in the movies: absolute filth. Rotten teeth, grimy hair, grungy clothes and so forth. Just as when George Lucas told the model designers that the spaceships needed to look "used." None of this Star Trek perfect spacecraft for him. He wanted grimy ships.

Note: this does not mean I won't be taking a shower every day during events. (I'm sure you're all relieved.)