History doesn't invite us to feel bad enough about ourselves

[Lago PARANOIA]

How many times when we study history we're asked to identify with the aggressors and victors? And how many times have icons of history have had their reputations inflated and their evil whitewashed. Way too fucking often.

I think exploration of history should go out of its way to make the students feel bad and identify with the victors as little as possible, unless it's to steal a couple of good qualities. IOW sort of what we're doing with Thomas Jefferson nowadays. Any discussion of post-Colombus American history should begin with 'Europeans killed the people living there with their dirtiness and greed'. And so on.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Actually, the Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures by showing up. The Asian-European disease reservoir was far more lethal than Pizarro could ever hope to be, and there is basically no realistic way that those diseases were not going to make the jump between populations once contact had been made.

The U.S. government may have broken 400 treaties with the Native Americans, but that was just mop-up. Their population had been shattered well beforehand.

[Fallen Hero]

Perhaps here in good ol' partiotic North America. My experience with Germany was different. Many people that I encountered there understood pride in German heritage to be NS identification. While it is- past a point- the basic being happy to be who/what you are should not bring shame. Not everyone was like that, but I encountered a few who wished they were anything but German. It is sad.

History should not make us feel bad about ourselves, perhaps about what our forefathers have done, but that is not ourselves.

[Manxome]

You may want to look at Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Was one of my high school history textbooks; provided an interesting contrast.

[Talisman]

I agree that we need to learn from the mistakes of history, and I agree that we shouldn't lionize racist murdering bastards, even if they're our ancestors. However, I disagree with the idea that learning history should make us feel bad about ourselves.

I, personally, had nothing to do with the European colonists murdering the Native Americans and driving them out of their ancestral lands. I think it was a heinous thing to do, but the fact that I happen to be of European extraction does not mean I should be held accountable for their crimes.

There are more than enough things in the world to feel genuinely depressed and/or guilty about without masochistically accepting the guilt of past generations.

[Heath Robinson]

Don't you think that trying to make people feel bad about their history is just going to lead to more people that are proud of genocidal bastards?

We're somewhat hardcoded to feel good about the groups we belong to, attributing genocide to groups that people feel good about may lessen the perceived abhorrence of genocide.

[Koumei]

Alternatively, it encourages "That wasn't really us though, they were the first settlers. They weren't Americans/Australians/whatever, they were EUROPEANS. Man, those Europeans are a bunch of dicks, we should do something about them."

Which is probably worse than saying "Ages ago some people did some bad stuff. They stopped doing it before we were born because they eventually died, as all people do, so big deal. Let's try not to do it again, but whatever."

[Gelare]

I, personally, had nothing to do with the European colonists murdering the Native Americans and driving them out of their ancestral lands. I think it was a heinous thing to do, but the fact that I happen to be of European extraction does not mean I should be held accountable for their crimes.

There are more than enough things in the world to feel genuinely depressed and/or guilty about without masochistically accepting the guilt of past generations.

This. I mean, seriously, you think that history classes should engrave a sense of white guilt on everyone because some people a long time ago who most of us aren't even related to did some bad things? Fuck that. A lot.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This. I mean, seriously, you think that history classes should engrave a sense of white guilt on everyone because some people a long time ago who most of us aren't even related to did some bad things? Fuck that. A lot.

There are two aspects to this answer. Let's start with the more 'positive' one.

It depends on how you define who you are.

If you as a white Protestant Northeasterner see yourself as belonging more to the group of, say, the white puritans in the seventeenth century than as some random black living in a metropolis, then yes.

You should be extremely ashamed of yourself. If you as a German citizen count Gandhi as more of 'one of you' than Hitler then you shouldn't.

2) If American history proves anything white/male/Christian guilt is needed to get any justice done. So embrace that white guilt and stop trying to weasel out of your cognitive dissonance you fucking pussy.

[Bigode]

2) If American history proves anything white/male/Christian guilt is needed to get any justice done. So embrace that white guilt and stop trying to weasel out of your cognitive dissonance you fucking pussy.

I suppose "male guilt" would entail not using "pussy" as an insult. Have an awful day.

P.S.: people can't stop being white and male. But Christianity admits easy solutions.

P.P.S.: how about you stop trying to weasel outta your seeming "I suck" opinion and do something about that instead?

[Lago PARANOIA]

I suppose "male guilt" would entail not using "pussy" as an insult. Have an awful day.

Oh, dammit, hypocrisy, I guess my point is invalid for ALL TIME because one dude fucked up his point.

P.S.: people can't stop being white and male. But Christianity admits easy solutions.

I guess the first question is why anyone even need to identify so strongly with these labels.

P.P.S.: how about you stop trying to weasel outta your seeming "I suck" opinion and do something about that instead?

I'm not weaselling out of anything. As an American where young children in Asia die to make my shoes while I watch the TV, I am a horrible person. Hopefully I'll be able to hold on to these sudden bursts of realization when it's time to make a decision, but probably not.

[Bigode]

Oh, dammit, hypocrisy, I guess my point is invalid for ALL TIME because one dude fucked up his point.

True.

I guess the first question is why anyone even need to identify so strongly with these labels.

As for religion, it's that or becoming Atheist.

Hopefully I'll be able to hold on to these sudden bursts of realization when it's time to make a decision, but probably not.

I.e. you think you suck. Do something about that.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I.e. you think you suck. Do something about that.

My suckage as a person encompasses a lot of forms, but as long as we're talking about just racial and social justice I support a very progressive form of taxation, I support the US not using its power to take advantage of other nations, and I also support a form of history which makes people feel bad about the things their ancestors did to give them such prosperity. On a more personal level, I do volunteer at the Salvation Army but since right now I'm unemployed and their office is literally right across the street from me it barely registers as even a minor personal sacrifice. I put more effort into playing videogames then the ten or so hours I spend over there per week.

I don't use my weakass volunteerism to pump myself up or to denigrate other people, I think collective action for inequality (like a very progressive government policy) is a lot more effective and doable than charities. So I would rather have people vote for such policies and I'm a little saddened that I have to bring this unimportant detail of my life up to deflect criticism of 'oh yeah, well, what are YOU doing to save the planet?!'


But that's not the point of the thread. Right now, I support making history less Eurocentric and whitewashing of some really extreme villainy our (white) heroes have done to them. I mean, I find it really baffling that making people (as a whole, not just Germans) feel ashamed and guilty of humanity for the Holocaust is considered A-OK but drawing a more personal example of US race/sex relations is considered white guilt. Especially when you consider that a lot of the problems today caused by past events are still ongoing. I mean, shit, there are a lot of nonwhite Americans alive to this day who were around before the civil rights movement.

[Beth_Naught]

white/male/Christian guilt is needed to get any justice done.

Wait, seriously? It's the White Knight of Sorrowful Mien who gets justice done? Cause if that's necessary the world is even more fucked than I thought it was.

If you're harboring guilt and making that your engine, fine. But you can't coerce people into action with guilt - it's an avoidant and negative emotion. And unlike empathy or community or a passion for social justice, it gets weaker when you push it, until it breaks.

The kyriarchy's in place regardless of how you feel about it. Quoting that awful "We Didn't Start the Fire" song is even true - it's not your fault. It's not your fault if you don't have to worry about getting raped when you're out strolling or about a cop hallucinating gunfire and emptying fifty rounds into your car at a routine traffic stop. That's nothing you did, it's nothing you can cease taking advantage of if you wanted to, and it's nothing you can sell as shameful - who doesn't want those things?

Showing how people are complicit in what's happening right now can work. But I can't see how the White Knight's feelings have any place in that discussion. And I really can't see how this isn't the White Man's Burden all over again.

Your heart's in the right place. Your heart just isn't the issue.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Wait, seriously? It's the White Knight of Sorrowful Mien who gets justice done? Cause if that's necessary the world is even more fucked than I thought it was.

Showing how people are complicit in what's happening right now can work. But I can't see how the White Knight's feelings have any place in that discussion. And I really can't see how this isn't the White Man's Burden all over again.

Look, unless you're willing to dismantle the overclass, you need the help of the overclass if you want any social justice to be done.

It's just that in the Western world, the overclass happens to be male, white, and Christian. Ideally we'd be able to target everyone, but in a world of limited political resources/capital it's easier to target the feelings of people actually have the power.

If you're harboring guilt and making that your engine, fine. But you can't coerce people into action with guilt - it's an avoidant and negative emotion. And unlike empathy or community or a passion for social justice, it gets weaker when you push it, until it breaks.

That's why it's important not to let people off of the hook. This is precisely why the Reconstruction failed, because we weren't able to get everyone on board with it, not because people felt tired about social injustice being done.

[Beth_Naught]

How can you have a legal overclass and justice simultaneously ? You cannot - it's definitionally impossible.

While the Reconstruction is a fine example of failure, if a movement needs to have everyone on board you might well as not bother. The Strom Thurmonds of the world are never getting on that train; they'll fight boarding that train literally to the death. Prove me wrong - somehow convince Ron Paul to denounce his white supremacy or Chris Buttars to renounce his hetero supremacy or whatever. I'd be delighted to be wrong about it - but I'm not, and that kind of power isn't around for the taking.

Which is not to say activism doesn't ever work: I'm pretty happy about suffrage and the Americans with Disabilities Act and a host of other things. But you've probably noticed that the wingnut slur de jour for Obama is "Community Organizer in Chief" (it's funny, tee hee, whatever could it mean?) There are movements that don't center the ruling class - and unlike Reconstruction, they're getting something done. That's why they're scary.

I'm not saying the story about First Nations and smallpox blankets shouldn't be told. And I'm not saying that when the USA pulls a stunt like that again by illegally testing unsafe AIDS vaccines on Black children you shouldn't say "You're doing it again, except it's on purpose this time, knock that off!" That's a start. I am saying that the White Knight's Guilt historically takes action on February the 33rd, and that's too long to wait.

[Gelare]

Lago, I have to hope that I'm misunderstanding your point, because if I'm not, it's really just the dumbest shit I've ever heard. You said this:

Right now, I support making history less Eurocentric and whitewashing of some really extreme villainy our (white) heroes have done to them.

Which is basically fine. I have no problems with making history more accurate. But then you say this immediately afterward:

I mean, I find it really baffling that making people (as a whole, not just Germans) feel ashamed and guilty of humanity for the Holocaust is considered A-OK but drawing a more personal example of US race/sex relations is considered white guilt.

Which, apart from being completely unrelated from what you claim is your point, is preposterous. The Holocaust was bad. On this point, I think we agree. So who, exactly, are you saying should feel guilty about this? I sure don't; my grandfather shot at the guys who were doing that stuff, and I certainly didn't take part in it, so am I supposed to feel guilty? The hell? I also didn't take any part in slavery going back at least as many generations as would be necessary for you and I to become related; am I supposed to feel guilty about it just because I'm white? Because that would be one of the most absurd, disgustingly racist things I've ever heard.

At the very least, separate your desire to make history more accurate from this terrible and irrelevant supporting argument, it doesn't do you any good the way it is.

[CatharzGodfoot]

So who, exactly, are you saying should feel guilty about this?

I think the idea is that we should feel guilty because we're human, not because we're personally at fault.

[Gelare]

So who, exactly, are you saying should feel guilty about this?

I think the idea is that we should feel guilty because we're human, not because we're personally at fault.

Thanks for trying to clear that up, but I'm still a bit confused. Is guilt the proper emotion to feel toward that? I wasn't alive at the time; there is no conceivable way I could have done anything to stop or lessen what happened. It sucked; I could feel regret, or sadness, that it occured. I could feel motivated, or even obligated, to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. But to feel guilty implies fault, and for me to feel like any of the bad things Lago is talking about are even tangentially my fault is just a non-starter.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But to feel guilty implies fault, and for me to feel like any of the bad things Lago is talking about are even tangentially my fault is just a non-starter.

The idea basically is to compare what moral traits you have to the villains of the story/event and then determine which of these caused the tragedy.

For example, when we bring up, say, the Holocaust making people feel bad because they too like the Nazis were white or German is not the way to go. Making people feel bad about it because like the population at large they also have lingering feelings of antisemitism, apathy, fear of the government, envy for the riches of others, the need to scapegoat, etc.. is the way to go.

However, most people still use their race/sex as one of their top self-image traits so it's just flat-out easier to target these instead. Most WASPs living in the USA today would feel like they have more in common with Thomas Jefferson than Barack Obama. When race gets kicked to the bottom of the list then we can try a more mature and fair tactic, but not until then.

[Talisman]

But to feel guilty implies fault, and for me to feel like any of the bad things Lago is talking about are even tangentially my fault is just a non-starter.

Agreed.

The idea basically is to compare what moral traits you have to the villains of the story/event and then determine which of these caused the tragedy.

For example, when we bring up, say, the Holocaust making people feel bad because they too like the Nazis were white or German is not the way to go. Making people feel bad about it because like the population at large they also have lingering feelings of antisemitism, apathy, fear of the government, envy for the riches of others, the need to scapegoat, etc.. is the way to go.

Okay...that makes a bit more sense. I think your attention-grabbing vehemence got in the way of your actual point.

However, most people still use their race/sex as one of their top self-image traits so it's just flat-out easier to target these instead. Most WASPs living in the USA today would feel like they have more in common with Thomas Jefferson than Barack Obama. When race gets kicked to the bottom of the list then we can try a more mature and fair tactic, but not until then.

I disagree. The only way to get to a more mature tactic is to use a more mature and fair tactic.

Race will always be a major issue as long as a significant percentage of people treat it as one. The only way this will stop happening is to stop doing it. Focus on race, or gender, or ethnicity, or whatever criteria you choose, will never make that criteria diminish in importance; quite the opposite.

I'm not saying the way to Utopia is to just ignore such concerns - I am saying it's a bad idea to focus heavily on them, because then you're just playing the same game as those to whom racial difference are the only issue.