The Dower Power Hour

How do we judge historical figures: by the standards of their own time or by ours? 

Take Theodore Roosevelt for example.  He was a charismatic President, a prominent conservative who never-the-less recognized the importance of breaking up the monopolies that dominated American industry at the time.  He also pioneered the American conservation movement, starting many of the national parks that remain in use today.  As if that weren’t enough, Theodore Roosevelt was also a feminist; in principle at least, he supported the women’s sufferage movement. 

However, T.R. was also a conceited, self-involved imperialist.  American foreign policy during his administration was one of aggressive expansion.  The “big stick diplomacy” struck more than its fair share of innocent people.  Roosevelt displayed little compassion for indigenous people during his activities in Panama, pursuing American interests without any regard to how it might effect the natives.  The Spanish American War that made Theodore Roosevelt a war hero was also morally ambiguous both in its cause and outcome.  More Americans died fighting Filipino guerillas after America annexed the Philippines as a war prize than died during the fight to “liberate” it.  Theodore Roosevelt was also in favor of eugenics, specifically in the forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people, an activity that has been almost universally condemned after the Third Reich embraced similar techniques. 

How do we judge a man like T.R.?  His strength of character is virtually without question, but what about from a moral standpoint?  The mainstream thought on the subject is that we ought not to condemn someone who was merely a “product of the times.”  In other words, if his activities fell within mainstream thought at the time or his beliefs were only exceptional in some categories and not all of them, than we should consider him a great man.  His imperialism should be excused because, after all, virtually every major power in the world had imperial ambitions during the early 20th century.

This argument asserts that since our modern leaders are operating on the popular perceptions of our time, we should not judge others for doing the same.  We cannot expect the people of the past to conform to our understanding of right and wrong any more than we could ask our leaders of today to operate on the paradigm of those living 100 years in the future.

But then, does that mean we cannot condemn slave holders in the South for their activities?  Or what about George Wallace and his passionate defense for segregation?  There is an apparent danger in judging everything from within its historic context.  At what point does something become “history?”  Is twenty years too soon to politely ignore “backwards” beliefs of the time? 

And what about cultural context?  By the same logic that causes us to ignore Theodore Roosevelt’s imperialism and support for eugenics - that he was only operating from the standards of the age and his personal world view that arose from his own place within that background - could also be applied to other cultures.  For example, we should not condemn female genital circumcision in Africa because it is, after all, a cultural practice.  Just as we would not want these people to judge our culture by their standards, so we should not do the same. 

When human rights are violated, however, I don’t think we can simply look the other way.  Slaveholders ought to be condemned and female genital circumcision, at least on those girls who are unwilling participants or too young to make an informed decision, vocally discouraged.  Ultimately when judging a historical figure such as a past President, both the standards of their day and ours should be employed.  Since we cannot possibly hope to escape the current zeitgeist when passing judgment on the past, we should make every effort to segregate the modern understanding from that of the time and reconcile them only in our conclusions.