I wish tumblr could do the whole “Separate the bad parts of someone’s legacy or work from the good parts.” Yes, Kinsey did creepy stuff, X poet or writer was homophobic, and unicorns are racist, that doesn’t mean we should just totally ignore them.

pluckyredhead:

spaceshipoftheseus:

funereal-disease:

sigmaleph:

you basically have to write off the ninety nine point something percent of all humans who ever lived that did not grow up with your very specific set of values

that seems limiting

I keep seeing posts to the effect of “being a product of their time is no excuse” and I’m just like – that’s awfully easy to say from the other side of things. Awfully rich to assume that the values of 2017 progressives are the be-all end-all. Who knows what new prejudices our grandchildren will notice that we’re totally blind to? You can’t stand on the shore and yell at a fish for being immersed in the water.

I think it’s a really interesting exercise (but not a Rule for whether someone is Acceptable, because that’s not productive) to look at historical morality in context, not according to the prevailing attitudes of the times, but according to the range of attitudes. According to the moral principles genuinely under question and debate at the time! So, as a blatant example – I do judge people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for their ownership and terrible treatment of slaves, because abolition was an idea that existed in their time. Unpopular, but thinkable. And Jefferson at least was quite radical in other areas and fully capable of deviating from his predecessors and peers! Whereas I don’t judge Marcus Aurelius nearly as harshly, even though he too was a powerful leader of a slave-owning nation who tried to think seriously about moral principles and never considered freeing slaves, because the idea of slavery as a moral wrong had no traction or presence in the ancient world whatsoever. 

Context is relevant, but that doesn’t make it simple.

I think TJ and GW are perfect examples because yes, they absolutely knew that slavery was wrong – Jefferson said it was a corrupting influence on the entire state of Virginia – and yet they constantly talked in circles around the idea of actually freeing their slaves or actually speaking out in favor of immediately-executed, total abolition because, like, that would be hard and unpopular among their social circles and dangerous to their political careers and who would bring them lemonade and raise their children for them? But also, I think, because abolishing slavery would mean acknowledging how truly evil it was, and thus acknowledging their own complicitness. They couldn’t give up the perks and they couldn’t accept the blame.

Which is to say, yes, context is important, but so is self-examination. If you can acknowledge that admirable individuals who performed heroic feats and/or wrote beautiful words could also willingly engage in and profit from oppression, you can come closer to examining your own role in oppressive systems. If you acknowledge human beings can not only do both good and evil things, but choose good or evil things, you can move away from “But I’m a good person!” or “But I meant well!” and look at what effect your actions have, as well as other people’s.

TL;DR: Admiring someone’s legacy while acknowledging their flaws is a step towards being able to improve your own behavior.