Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
No time like the present

No time like the present

Last updated on: August 22, 2022 at 2:25 pm by Fred Clark

No time like the present 2022-08-22T14:25:18-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

James H. Sweet warns against the dangers of “presentism.” He’s a historian writing for other historians,* so he assumes that his readers will know what this means and will agree that it’s bad.

And some of the many and varied things he condemns under this heading of “presentism” do, in fact, sound bad — like things that historians should avoid and should be careful about passing on to us non-historians who rely on them as trustworthy guides. But some of those other many and varied things Sweet also seems to regard as “presentism” seem not bad at all. In fact, they seem like exactly the sorts of things the rest of us hope that historians had better be doing if they expect any of the rest of us to be able to trust them.

Here’s the bit that set off alarm bells for me:

If we don’t read the past through the prism of contemporary social justice issues — race, gender, sexuality, nationalism, capitalism — are we doing history that matters? This new history often ignores the values and mores of people in their own times, as well as change over time, neutralizing the expertise that separates historians from those in other disciplines.

Justice, apparently, was only recently invented — some time in the 1960s, perhaps — so evaluating the justice or injustice of any person or group’s “values and mores” before then is just an anachronistic projection of “contemporary social justice issues” into the foreign country of the past

And that’s what’s putting the pucker on his puss here, the audacious presumption of evaluating the past. Sweet critiques this by saying this presentist faux history “ignores the values and mores of people in their own time” but if it were doing that he wouldn’t be so upset. He’s not mad that the “values and mores of [some] people in their [and only “their”] own time” are being ignored, but that those values and mores are being judged by standards that he — despite being a historian — insists did not exist until the very recent present.

Whenever you hear anyone tut-tutting that you’re failing to consider the “values and mores of people in their own time,” ask “Which people?” And then ask, “And why is it only their time?”

George Whitefield’s role in introducing plantation slavery to Georgia is dismissed and diminished because, you have to understand, he was a man of his time. But John Woolman and Benjamin Lay were also men of his time.** And so were all of the men that Whitefield purchased and enslaved and stole the lives, liberty, and labor of on his Georgia plantation. Were those enslaved men — as is frequently said of Woolman and Lay — “ahead of their time”? Or is regarding them as “men” too, as also fully human persons, just a “presentist” anachronism — an inappropriate projection of “contemporary social justice issues” back into the alien world of the past?

This is, of course, the text and subtext of Sweet’s concern about “presentism”: Slavery. It almost always is when an American historian warns against judging people in the past according to present-day values and morals rather than exclusively the values and morals of exclusively them in a time we treat as exclusively theirs. Sometimes it’s about Indian-killers and the genocide of Native Americans (mustn’t say the g-word — that’s presentism!). But usually it’s slavery.***

I think the archetypal example of what Sweet condemns here as presentism isn’t found in the work of some “new historians” or in some uppity work of journalism trespassing onto historians’ turf like the 1619 Project. It is, rather, the famous confession from Lutheran pastor and remorseful former Nazi Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

This violates every taboo of “presentism” that Sweet warns against. It uncharitably and anachronistically judges the past according to moral standards held in the present. It passes judgment on the Martin Niemöller of 1933 through the prism of the contemporary social justice issues of 1946, steadfastly refusing to acknowledge “the values and mores of people in their own times” way back in 1933 when he was far from alone in writing paeans to the glorious “national revival” being ushered in by Hitler and was enthusiastically voting National Socialist (twice). By 1946, Niemöller has become a presentism-peddling “new historian” who insists on arrogantly evaluating those past values and mores and on condemning them — explicitly — on the basis of “race, gender, sexuality, nationalism, capitalism,” etc.

Granted, Niemöller’s confession is not a work of academic “history,” but the same “presentism” present in his confession can be found in most history written about the Holocaust and the rise and fall the Third Reich. That seems appropriate. And important. And necessary. It seems like good history by historians doing history as history ought to be done.

So why is it that when someone criticizes Thomas Jefferson or George Whitefield for enslaving other people, historians as historians feel compelled to scold us for failing to judge them only according to “the values and mores of people in their own times,” but those same historians don’t seem quite as compelled to offer the same exculpatory argument when anyone criticizes, say, Wernher von Braun for being a big honkin’ Nazi?

What is it about American slavery and Indian-slaughter that prompts us to suddenly start fretting about the alleged dangers of evaluating the values and mores and morals of the past? “We mustn’t start writing about the history of America’s holocausts the way we write about the history of the German Holocaust” seems like an odd argument to make. Perhaps it’s because I’m not a historian, but I don’t find it convincing.

If someone were to write about Nazis the way that Sweet urges historians to write and think about American slaveholders — with a scrupulous refusal to judge them by any standards not shared by their contemporary compatriots and with no regard for questions of justice or injustice — would any of us think this was better history? Would we think, “Here, at last, is an accurate and disinterestedly objective portrait of the past” or would we just think “Dude, they have skulls on their caps! They’re the baddies! Don’t you understand any of what you’re writing about?”

Such a neutral history could never be an accurate one. Nor could it be in any way a neutral one. Its starting point would be a wholesale concession to the point of view of the Nazis themselves — an acceptance of their assertion that they were the people who owned their times, and thus that they alone were people and their times belonged only to them.

That would be gross. I was going to say that it would be an erasure of their victims and of their opponents (overlapping categories), but I was worried that using a word like “erasure” would be seized on as the prompt for another spasm of reflexive fretting about “the prism of contemporary social justice issues.” And in any case if you don’t already appreciate how gross that would be, then what more is there to say?

Quite a bit more, actually.

But it’s been said already and said better by Malcolm Foley over at the Anxious Bench whose post on this — “Am I A Historian? : On Presentism” — is what led me to Sweet’s essay.

Foley recognizes that the construct of “presentism” in Sweet’s essay not only precludes him from being accepted as a legitimate “historian” but that it also precludes him and everyone like him from ever being regarded as worthy of consideration in officially legitimate “history.”

Foley’s essay has more coherence and more force than Sweet’s does because he’s not merely defending his discipline against perceived interlopers, he’s defending the legitimacy of his very humanity and existence. “Am I a historian?” turns out to be less an inquiry about his place in that academic discipline than it is a paraphrase of Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a woman?” — with all the same implications.

Here’s Foley:

This impulse, in fact, is central to the Black American intellectual and political tradition. This tradition has never been “objective” nor has it sought to be so. In fact, so-called “objectivity” is not only a myth, but it is morally reprehensible. We do not think merely to think; we think in order to resist evil, in order to live, and in order to love. Because Black people in this country have, since its beginning, been subject to the threat of terroristic violence and attempted domination and exploitation, we have marshaled much of our intellectual and political resources not to speculation or to thought experiments, but to liberation. When Sweet laments the fact that historians seem to only now focus on “race, gender, sexuality, nationalism and capitalism,” I see the constructs that shape the world in which we live. But it is precisely because I am a historian (although perhaps in my own mind!) that robust engagement with these dreaded concepts is most fruitful. Being a historian reminds me that race and capitalism, specifically, are historical phenomena. History taught me that people created the category of race in order to exploit one another. History taught me that what keeps capitalism going is often the development of new technologies in order to exploit labor. History, through voices like Oliver Cox, Cedric Robinson, Edward Baptist, Robin D. G. Kelley, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, taught me to connect the two in understanding racial capitalism and its tendrils that have extended through world history for a few centuries now. History then also reminds me that if people made it, then people can unmake it.

Such an accounting does not in fact ignore the values and mores of people in their own times. But it does pass judgment, and it does not haphazardly do so. I am reminded of the voices that call prominent theologians in the eighteenth and nineteenth century “men of their times” when referring to their virulently racist pro-slavery stances. It is not an imposition of a foreign standard that I apply when I call those stances virulently racist; it is the recognition and elevation of a standard contemporary to their own, namely that of the enslaved. If objectivity means that I treat evil ideas the same as I treat just ones, I have no time for it.

That’ll preach. I suspect it will also result in better — more accurate, more insightful, more truthful — history.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

* I am not a historian. At all. And I’m sure that some credentialed historians will perceive my layperson’s opinions about their priestly disputes as little more than an exhibition of my ignorance as an outsider. Fine. It’s even possible that I’m a uniquely dim outsider whose inability to grasp the nuanced finer points of their disciplinary disputes represents only the exceptional obtuseness of a lone individual.

But it’s also possible that if one fairly clever, otherwise educated and interested outside observer is perceiving those disputes this way, then there may also be others. So please talk to me like I’m dumb, but talk to me like I’m teachable, because I suspect I’m not the only one in the class who’s misunderstanding this. (That is, if I am misunderstanding this. Which I don’t think I am.)

** Another problem with the noxious “values and mores of people in their own times” construct is that it reduces the past to a unitary, unanimous set of “values and mores” the same way that some space operas reduce entire planets to a single culture or city or stereotype (the Desert Planet, the Beach Planet, the Vegas Planet, the Planet of Amazons, the Planet of Musicians, etc.). That’s never been an accurate description of any time or place. Values and mores and morals have always been disputed and contested. It’s rare to find any expression of them — in word or deed — that does not assert or defend them in contrast to competing values and mores.

When we’re asked to be more sympathetic to, say, Anti-Masons, judging them only by the values and mores of “their own times,” the implication is that everybody back then was anti-Masonic. That’s neither accurate nor logically possible if you think about it.

But that non-slavery example is a distraction because, again, this discussion is always about slavery. And there the illogic is twofold. “You have to understand that everybody back in that time was denouncing the abolitionists and defending slavery” cannot apply to the abolitionists being denounced. Nor, again, can it apply to the enslaved.

*** Again, I am not a historian. (Or, for the pretentious, I am not an historian.) But you’d think anyone who is one would be aware of this long-established pattern in which appeals to “the values and mores of their time” are primarily offered in defense of enslavers. If I were an academic historian concerned about the potential pitfalls of “presentism,” then, it would seem prudent for me to select examples of what I’m talking about that don’t allow anyone to mistake my argument for a press release from the United Daughters of the Confederacy defending the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest that they donated to some public library in Indiana.

Just once, you’d think the historians railing against presentism would write in defense of Nat Turner rather than of Benjamin Turner.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 22, 2022

Strong man strangle universe

Next Post

August 23, 2022 8/23 Flashback: TurboJesus

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to 1 John, what three things testify on earth?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit The Spirit, the water, and the blood Faith, hope, and love Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving