WE ARE VICTIMS OF THE PRESENT

 

WE ARE VICTIMS OF THE PRESENT

 

David Lloyd George figured prominently in British politics, both reviled and revered.  A fate most politicians share.  As a Liberal he worked tirelessly to promote laws and social reform that would ease the many hardships suffered by the average worker.  Some of the things he proposed were revolutionary for the times he lived in.  In a speech in New Castle, on October 9, 1909, he said the following:

“Who made ten thousand people owners of the soil, and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our kin?  Where did the table of the law come from?  Whose finger inscribed it?”

The Industrial Revolution was not kind to its workers.  From child labor to abhorrent living conditions and poor pay.  People suffered.  David Lloyd George rallied for better wages and working conditions to improve the lives of working people who were often not treated better than indentured slaves.

David Lloyd George

However, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, representing England as its Prime Minister, that same person who so eloquently stood up for his fellow man, had little time or consideration for the people who inhabited England’s colonies, people who were predominantly colored and black.  His statements in reference to their ability to govern themselves were downright derogatory and racist.  He even used the N word in an official government communique.  That blacks couldn’t be trusted to govern themselves.

The American president, Woodrow Wilson, the great architect of the proposed League of Nations and a great proponent of a nation’s right at self-determination, was equally ambivalent when it came to color and race.  Self-determination was basically for white people.  Japan, asking for a racial equality clause, saw it denied by Wilson.  Fast forward to 1941 and hello Pearl Harbor here I come.

Woodrow Wilson, Paris 1919, Peace Conference

Isn’t it amazing how justice is dispensed depending on one’s point of view?  I guess it all depends on who is doing the dispensing of justice and who is on the receiving end!

In 1909 David Lloyd George viewed the attitude and behavior of the landed gentry and factory owners towards labor as discriminatory and reprehensible.  As wrong!  Yet look how his attitude towards the colonies and people of color mirrored the same kind of racist attitudes for which he held the rich in utter contempt.

Why the discrepancies?  What foments or condones certain ideas and practices, where does our sense of justice come from?

The answer is simple.  Our sense of justice simply changes over time and is heavily dependent on circumstance.  A society steadily moving forward, filled with energy and opportunity, will display a much more gentle view than a society that is struggling and slipping backwards.

We view the world based on today’s reality and interpretation and not on whether those viewpoints could be subject to change some time in the near or distant future.

We are victims of the present and we don’t have the luxury or the ability to predict the future with any degree of certainty, and that includes changing morals, opinions and ethics.

We have a tendency to go back in time and judge people and nations based on what they have done in the past or failed to do.  It appears focused on condemning the actions of leaders or communities who engaged in practices deemed appropriate for the times in which they were expressed and enacted.  Canada’s residential schools are a prime example. 

Was Sir John A. Macdonald so bad that we can’t wait to banish his image and erase him from public view?  His impact and historical significance obscured and ignored because of an enacted government policy that in hindsight was morally and ethically wrong?  Was there a public outcry and condemnation at the time?  Was there any opposition?

Sir John. A. Macdonald

It would be akin to incarcerating people now for crimes they might conceivably commit in the future.  Second guessing I believe it is called!  Sitting in judgement is a pastime we like to indulge in and hindsight is its guiding mechanism.

Rather than erase or ignore past wrongs we would be better served remembering them well and to acknowledge that the wrongs committed in the past should serve as a reminder not to repeat them in the present or future.  If the past doesn’t serve as a beacon, what are we aiming for?

Hindsight is for reflection, not judgement.  All our forefathers participated in the biggest land grab in recent history.  We didn’t ask for permission to enter and share the Americas with the Native Americans who had lived here for several millennia.  Instead we stole their land and treated the natives like savages.  Forced them to give up their way of life, culture, language and customs.  We relegated them to living on reservations which were often located in the worst and poorest locations.  And now we’re looking for a few historical scapegoats to make up for something ALL participated in?  Are we supposed to feel better when using hindsight morality to right certain wrongs?  History is living proof that we are tested over and over again and unfortunately abject failure is part of that equation as well.

Residential schools

And we’re not out of the woods yet.  There are examples galore around the world that showcase how a two-state solution is a near unworkable concept, especially when it involves two totally disparate cultures.  Conflict is almost a given and only two things are obvious: One; power crumbles resistance.  Two; undermine power and it gives way to resistance.  We either integrate and make the best of it or feed into past grievances and wrongs and hope for the best.

And if we aren’t allowed to make mistakes, will we forever walk around wringing our hands indecisively, constantly questioning whether our intentions are right or wrong?  How can we move forward if we constantly worry about how our actions might be judged by future generations based on what THEY believe is right or wrong?  Not to worry.  Future generations will have their say, because that is what we are doing right now.

History, and how our history is told should be based on accuracy, a retelling of facts, people, dates and events.  Will it be unbiased?  Probably not, because history and its telling comes with a bit of bias, dependent on the author and whether he or she represents the winning side or the losing side.  The victors often insist that their part be appropriately embellished and the defeated are given little or no choice.  Even the most dedicated historian is aware of the salient fact that one cannot ignore the potential threats to life and livelihood.

As a writer, a student of philosophy and history, I believe that the human narrative should be told as honestly and accurately as we can.  And rather than sitting in judgement we should be grateful that history unfolds, not always in the way we desire, but acknowledges that we are far from perfect.  Our past is absolutely meaningless if we don’t learn from it.