Presentism

[Coastie04]

I've thought about this subject often. Even when looking at today, instead of past or future times, perceptions color how we see things. Many people can look at the same situation and have completely different views about it. For example, a shooting in self defense. One person might applaud the shooter for exercising his right to defend his life, another might be disgusted at the senseless violence, and yet a third be sorry for either party, or both, for being in that situation. So it is with history.

A few years back, I had the chance to meet an author who was writing about sailors' experiences in WWII. One of the first things he said was that he learned very early on not to judge people's actions and decisions. A combination of 'fog of war', personal morals, standard proceedures, and human emotion/shock can cause people to make decisions that don't seem logical later on. Especially if you know that the result is disasterous. A great example of this is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. There was a working RADAR that saw the incoming aircraft and could have given some warning. However, they didn't raise the alarm because they thought the new technology was defective yet again. 20/20 hindsight shows that that decision was a mistake, but people can't be blamed for making it.

Some great historical points have been brought up in this post about perceptions, and I agree that in order to portray the past accurately, we need to be willing to be 'politically incorrect'. Imagine in 200 years trying to reinact the 1960's without racism!

And moving on with the topic, this also covers a topic that's been brought up before about period correctness. Some people (and I used to be one) argue about modifying certain items to be quasi-historical. Even if the modifications were well within the technology of the time, they might not have ever done something that seems obvious. I've heard this debate a lot about weapons and clothing, often on how they were carried, used, etc. A modern rifle sling would probably have been very usefull, and can be made out of brass and leather, but certain design concepts just weren't around back then. Although it might seem a very logical step for us, if it was never seen back then, it might be perceived as 'too radical' or just plain wrong. One example could be the breach loading cannon. It seems like the way to go, especially since all modern weapons are breach loading, and they have examples from the Wasa. However, most cannons were muzzle-loaders in the 18th C. for a number of reasons. So, even if the technology to do something is there, it may not be accurate.

Just my little rant on the subject.

Coastie

[Misson]

A combination of 'fog of war', personal morals, standard proceedures, and human emotion/shock can cause people to make decisions that don't seem logical later on.

A fascinating (and scary) example of this was the Stanford Prison Study, a psychology experiment done in the 70s.

It'd take too much space here to give it its due. Basically it showed that normal people can become very sadistic simply by play-acting as prison guards and very subservient by play-acting as prisoners. You can read about the details at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_pris...ison_experiment

Closely related (and mentioned on that Wiki page) is the Milgram experiment. In that one, volunteers were told by an authority figure to administer shocks to an unseen victim in another room, increasing the shocks all the way up oto 450 volts, which was administered three times in succession. If the volunteer protested, the authority figure was to tell them to keep going. This was to happen four times before the experiment was stopped. Despite sounds from the victim in the other room indicating that the shocks were hurting them and eventually (from one text I read discussing the experiment), complete silence from the victim, 65% of the volunteers reached 450 volts. In reality, the victim was an actor and no shocks were delivered, but the volunteers didn't know that. Rather ominous what we may be capable of, isn't it?

[Red Sea Trade]

I must say, this discussion is one I find absolutely fascinating. It plays off things I have thought for many years, but seldom had a forum in which to talk them through.

I think that, for most modern Americans, the past is viewed with a mixture of awe and contempt. We are taught (or were, when I was a boy) that our forefathers were plaster gods--magnificent, but cold and distant. We responded in kind, with a form of worship that allowed no affection.

This in turn spawned a reaction. Sure, the 18th century saw the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, Mozart and the greatest assembly of political minds this country has ever seen...but they were SHORT! Yeah, that's it, we're taller. And cleaner. And...uh, we know more stuff.

Well, we may be cleaner (although a quick trip on the subway of any major city may call that into question), but I always wonder if we really do know more than a typical American of 200 years ago.

What we know is differentstuff. Sure, I know how to operate a VCR, a car and an ATM, but I would have starved to death in the 18th century. I have absolutely no practical knowledge of planting crops or tending livestock. I have never prepared a winter's worth of food for storage. I have never set a broken bone or drawn an infected tooth.

What I have always felt is crucial in speaking of the past to visitors is getting across the idea of what was needed to get by. Here is where presentism comes in. All of our technical knowledge would be completely useless in a pre-technological era. We would be as lost, hopeless and helpless in 17th century America as a resident of 1690's Boston would be in our present day.

It certainly helps keep me humble when I speak of the past with this in mind.

[Coastie04]

normal people can become very sadistic simply by play-acting as prison guards and very subservient by play-acting as prisoners.

Very true. This is something that is often overlooked in history. Lately, there's been a big movement against Columbus due to his harsh treatment of natives. He was coming from Spain during the Inquisition, and had the ultimate authority figure, God, to deal with. He sailed into a land of heathens and had to maintain control. Practically enslaving the population and forcing 'the true religion' into their lives could be considered not only moral, but possibly even charitable. It's definitely a very interesting subject to discuss.

Coastie