I heard this word used the other day about interpreting historical events with contemporary standards, when talking about Robert E. Lee. I hadn't heard it before, but I love the concept. Have you seen it before?

I see the author used quotes round the word, and also defined it:

quote:

Moreover we shouldn’t be overly guilty of the sin of “presentism,” judging historical figures by contemporary standards.

It's probably a nonce word. I suspect if I'd wanted to say something similar I'd have used "present-dayism" which IMO describes it better.

Here's AWAD's take on the word.

What standard should we then use to examine the actions of historical figures? Should we ignore depredations because they were considered normal at the time, which are considered heinous to us?

It's a matter of scale, I'd say. The actions of a Hitler, a Genghis Khan or a Pol Pot would be deplored no matter what the era.

Yes, agreed, arnie. Who, though, do you think might be in the gray area?

Just today I was watching a movie that said that FDR would never have been elected today because of his disability. Back then, the presidents weren't on television. I think, unfortunately, they are right. 'Tis a pity.

quote:

Who, though, do you think might be in the gray area?

Almost everyone who lived more than a couple of generations ago. Until the end of the 20th century most people felt it was quite OK use corporal punishment on children. Many (white) people were unthinkingly racist until the 1960s or so. During the 18th and 19th centuries slave owning was unexceptionable ...

Yes, though sometimes you have to be careful. Buying people is okay?

You can't buy people, although occasionally renting a woman for an hour is permissible.

quote:

unexceptionable

Interesting word. I've not seen it used before, at least that way.