Context vital in reinterpreting historical events
By Lethbridge Herald Opinion on June 12, 2021.
All generations, to one extent or another, choose to rewrite history through the lens of their own high-powered introspection, reassessing the tainted decisions of generations governed by a leadership steeped in their own time, not the mandate for unquestioned truth and right that is often perceived to reside solely in the present.
Recently, we saw Premier Jason Kenney taking criticism over “cancel culture” remarks and the ongoing removal of statues of John A. Macdonald in Canada, considered one of the driving forces behind the residential school system. In more recent years, this system has been revealed to be an egregious abuse, the ranks of its defenders have thinned considerably, and Canadians rightly deserve to know more about the assimilationist practices directed against Canada’s Indigenous peoples.
Although Kenney was roundly criticized for his remarks, he did hit upon an important point: reinterpreting or revising history is often important and necessary in the present, but attempting to erase it altogether can be extremely problematic. Getting to the bottom of historical truths is right and just, but if it comes at the expense of an historical narrative that might be considered too controversial or uncomfortable for modern audiences – no matter how truthful it might be – then we’ve begun treading down an ominous path. There is a danger in that kind of selective memory editing, because if we want to view our history through a clouded lens that purges the negative how then do we pass on the knowledge to learn from those mistakes, if we are obsessively preoccupied with erasing them? Revisionism can be a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.
There is a movement that seems to want to see historical events portrayed in the starkest terms of black and white – evil incarnate on one side, the noble forces of good on the other – when in reality the truth of history is actually vastly more muddy than most would have us believe. Unfortunately, history is invariably written by the victors or those who hold the reins of power, and this allows them to shape the narrative that emerges for decades to come, usually to the detriment of truth.
And we have other skeletons in the historical closet, some of which are illustrative of the problems that can arise when we begin to nose around making modern judgements about the past.
Should we condemn and ostracize former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, for instance, simply because we now know him to have been a virulent anti-Semite in his private life? Or right here in Alberta, how do we recognize the character and contributions of feminist, politician, author, and social activist Nellie McClung – one of the “famous five” – without acknowledging her unflinching support for a eugenics program in the province, which eventually led to sterilizations and other abuses that continued until 1972?
And the list could go on. The trouble with revisionist history is that once you crack open the Pandora’s box to apply modern moral judgements to historical events, somewhere the facts are often being altered or filtered or even ignored, because it might be considered “too controversial” or “racist” or “not in keeping with modern interpretation.” Or it might be that we prefer our heroes to be pure as the driven snow, not harbouring dark endorsements of Nazi-era scientific pseudo-philosophy, like McClung.
We cannot simply view the past through the narrow lens of political correctness, or we risk losing the truth of the past, and the lessons that truth can teach us. Sometimes it can be disturbing, depressing, but often illuminating, and attempting selective revisions and omissions in an effort to highlight the impact of one historical event over another or somehow protect the present is not teaching future generations what they need to know about their own origins. History can be ugly and uncomfortable, and we need to seek out its many truths, but you can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. All history – the good, the bad, and the ugly – deserves its place in our collective memories.
What is often missing from this debate is a sense of historical context, or the acknowledgement that people and events were often creatures of their own time, with prejudice and hatreds that might have once been commonplace, but are viewed with abhorrence in modern times. This doesn’t excuse it, but it does offer a starting point for understanding. We sitting in lofty judgement from our perches in the present need to remember that ensuing generations will place our own actions under a historical microscope, and we can rest assured they will not always like what they find there.
-1
Inevitably all of history is linked to the church, if the church thought it was a good idea, then politicians were doing “God’s work”. Without approval of the Church nothing “lasting was done” so are we blaming the wrong groups?
History can be used to justify anything, no matter how evil. History does encourage us, if not force us to choose sides; usually that choice is between freedom and the enemies of freedom. Those who admire communism will always be the enemies of freedom.