When In Rome

                                                                                     
                                                                                                           

I have to tell you. I've been reading a lot recently. I've read about Lincoln and how he studied law in his log cabin. I saw the movie, too.ⁱ Reading by candle-light. Quaint. I couldn't figure out, though, why he didn't just turn on the lights? Later in his life he needed glasses, and maybe that could have been avoided. He wasn't too smart.

But that's an anachronism. Even though Humphry Davy made the first electric light in 1800 (a carbon arc light),ⁱⁱ it was strictly experimental and actual indoor electric lighting didn't appear until the end of the nineteenth century – long after Lincoln died.

We tend to project backwards what is familiar and important to us in the present, and give little consideration to the past itself. Another pictureⁱⁱⁱ presented some additional in Lincoln's life and it, itself, displayed a number of anachronisms^iv but, of course, many movies do so. It's hard to avoid the back projection. And it's easy to criticize it. At least that's the case when it comes to the errors of other people and those blunders that refer to physical objects.^v But there is no reason not to review their product and correct these errors, so it's a shame that movie personnel don't do that critically enough.

It's harder, though, to avoid the mistakes we, ourselves, make when we attribute our own standards to others. We've come to recognize this when we talk about “multiculturalism” and cultural diversity and relativity, and we've come to accept the idea that there may be different norms in different groups, societies, and at different times. We're taught, nowadays, that there is no single “right” and “wrong” that always applies.^vi For example, while the term “nigger” may be common and be viewed as perfectly acceptable among blacks, if a caucasian uses it there is no other way to interpret it except as racism.

As to other biases, we emphasize youth. Our focus in style, language, and behavior emphasize this. We idolize young singers, sports stars, and models. Other societies, however, may scoff at our choice and praise the wisdom of the elderly. Obviously they are ageist. Co-education is our standard, and those who permit single-sex schools are sexist.^vii But in many parts of the world, the education of women is considered to be wrong. The rules for those societies may differ from ours. While there are dissenters in those settings, however, there are also dissenters in our own country.

In ancient times it was often within a society's practices to perform human sacrifice. The Bible, with which most of us are familiar even if only superficially, includes rules of war which sanction the killing of women, children, and animals. While we modern people may view all of these actions as abhorrent, they were at one time considered to be “right” and natural. From our enlightened position, moreover, we attribute to religions that assign different rights and responsibilities to men and women, not only sexism but intolerance.^viii Adherents of religions who hold other than the current opinions, but maintain that they are following the word of G-d, are often viewed as intolerant fools whose views are unacceptable.

But though we are arrogant, convinced that our way is the only right way, it has become the rule not to criticize the practices of others – unless we disagree with them. And it is important to note that the “them” in the previous sentence may apply to the “practices” or to the “others.” Because of our modern sensibilities we often understand and accept the acts of others elsewhere^ix even if they don't measure up to our own and we're convinced they are silly and outdated. We are sensitive to their feelings and their needs, as long as it is fashionable to be so. And equally pompous and presumptuous, we interpret the past in the light of our own prejudices – even if they don't reflect the views of other times and cultures. Was George Washington a racist? Or Thomas Jefferson? Both owned slaves. Indeed, slavery also receives biblical approbation, and the Holy Book provides rules regarding the way it is to be conducted. Should we condemn these practices or do these situations reflect the norms for their times?^x

My intent is not to defend institutions with which I disagree. But though I may consider some of them “wrong” from my absolutist position, I am prepared to accept the idea that they may have been viewed as perfectly normal for their setting. Views change.^xi We cannot flout local customs when we are elsewhere. When in Rome, etc. And we cannot impose ex post facto rules on those who lived according to the standards and observances of their own societies.^xii (Nor should we.) Those who, in the past, opposed the participation of women in government are often caricatured now as sexists even though many were honestly concerned for the welfare of those women and wished only to protect them. We may now view this as patronizing and sexist, but for most of recorded history it was normal and “enlightened.”

But our tolerance for other views is selective. It does not justify all past and present practices. We can blame the Christian Church for his indoctrination, but Martin Luther was a vitriolic antisemite – and a vicious example of the contagion that has persisted for millennia, down to modern Islam, Europe, and the “liberal” Left. Slavery, which still exists, is also reprehensible. As is the modern war against religion waged by the media and those opposing any form of worship.^xiii And the refusal of some nations^xiv to permit religious practices other than those of its official religion.

The main problem is our preoccupation with our own views and with the modern concept of correctness. We're convinced that our perspectives represent the benchmarks for all times and places, but it is considered correct to tolerate and support those of groups now “in,”^xv while disparaging and dismissing the views of those whom we hate and who are out of vogue. There's no need to analyze the arguments of those groups. Whether the “in” group is wrong and the arguments of the “out” groups make more sense is beside the point. We support those whom we favor – right or wrong. And self-loathing disguised as a desire to better our country is an imposition of higher values here than we demand elsewhere^xvi and as the virtue of freeing a people from their government. Indeed, according to this thinking, we're always wrong and they're right.

And the same is true of the ideas that are in vogue now. They're true! And anything that deviates from our current biases is, by definition, wrong – even if it was correct at the time. We evaluate those in the past by current standards and judge them accordingly. Some day, though, we'll be held to standards inconceivable to us now, and we shall be found wanting.

So what's the solution? It's certainly not to abandon our own morality, but care is in order before we project it on others who may have lived in different times or who now live in different societies. And the answer also is not to give a pass to people we know to be violating basic behavioral norms and who should know that they are doing so because of some notion of political correctness. Politics shouldn't be used to vilify those we oppose and justify acts we know to be wrong but have been committed by those with whom we agree in regard to unrelated issues – to turn “good guys” into “bad” and vice versa.

In short, we should recognize that there are absolutes, and that everyone should observe them; but we should realize that the application of another area's “absolutes” depends on prior education and on the culture in which different people live. That doesn't make "wrong" right, but, rather, more understandable. After all, 1863 isn't 2013, and Lincoln, Nebraska isn't Port Lincoln, Australia.

Next episode:  "I Don't Know" – Knowledge and belief. 

i       Abe Lincoln In Illinois, 1940.

ii         http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/edison/lightbulb.shtml

iii     Lincoln, 2012.

iv      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/goofs?ref_=tttrv_sa_1

v      And the assumptions related to physical objects change regularly. My children assume I had a dinosaur for a pet and my grandchildren cannot imagine how their own folks could have spent part of their childhood without computers, iPods, and tablets. Going back a little – but only a little – I never lived before the time of electricity and telephones and indoor plumbing, while my great grandparents were raised before any of these were a practical part of life. And each generation cannot imagine how it's predecessors might have survived without them. It's easier to assume they always existed.

vi     Full disclosure: I happen to be one of those benighted individuals who believe that absolute standards exist – and I know what they are – but I recognize that I'm not in keeping with modern notions and political correctness, so I'll try, for the purposes of this essay, to limit my own views.

vii    Unless they're only for women. Women’s schools are necessary to protect women from domination by males at whatever level. Men's schools, however, are, by definition, sexist. They are separate but unequal.

viii   There is no recognition of the reality that, in the animal kingdom, it is usual for males and females to have different roles. If it happens among humans, even if members of both sexes approve of the arrangement, it is considered prejudicial.

ix     Americans tend to be intolerant of contrary views and practices by other Americans while they consider the mores of others to be perfectly understandable, and to be accepted without criticism.

x      Even Abraham Lincoln fought slavery only because by doing so he was defending the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states that were at war with the Union, and the proclamation, itself, was not written out of any deeply felt conviction that slavery was immoral. Were it not for the Civil War there is no evidence that President Lincoln would have acted to end slavery.

xi     That idea has more than one form. In the individual dogmas may change – for example, the liberal ideas of youth may (or may not) be converted to conservatism as time passes. Past views may change over the centuries as well. It is interesting to consider how our descendants will judge our own actions a few centuries hence. It's likely they will have different perspectives and biases and they'll be embarrassed by the way we acted. They'll see us as __ist – just as we view our predecessors.

xii    Even “right” and “wrong” may be different in different cultures. And those educated in one society may thus have different views from ones accepted in another. But as long as those views don't cause harm to others, they should be tolerated, no matter how misinformed they may be.

xiii   Indeed, war is not justifiable: whether the religious wars that have happened in the past or those far more lethal ones led by people like Hitler and Stalin whose only interest in religion was to exterminate believers. In this particular instance, the media tend to belittle religion, in large part due to a lack of interest in it, and antipathy towards it. See “Blind Spot” by Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert, and Roberta Green Ahmanson (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2009.

xiv    Saudi Arabia, for example. Other nations, like Jordan, forbid the sale of land to the Jews. The Palestinians have driven large numbers of Christians from Bethlehem and elsewhere. They have already declared that when they have their own state, Jews ill not be permitted.

xv     And those who share our own prejudices.

xvi    It's interesting that however much our own citizens decry our system and praise other societies, America is the most popular destination of those fleeing their own countries. And those are sometimes the “in” countries whose policies so many support.