MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

AnotherCat · 04-24-2017, 08:32 PM

Hi Bookpossum, I think you are taking my points too far. All I am saying is that in my view we should not be critical of our ancestors who were just doing what were normal or unavoidable behaviours in their own societies and times. First, let me give an example from Blair's own real life experience.

In Shooting an Elephant, which essay of Blair's is claiming to report an actual incident he was involved in, there was no necessity for him to shoot the elephant but the large crowd of villagers basically pressured him into it against his better judgement. It was clearly not seen by the villagers as being a bad thing to shoot it and, of course, like the shooting of the tiger in Burmese Days, they got the meat in the end.

I am assuming that most people in a western country today would disagree with the shooting. However, what I am suggesting is that a local in the crowd whose society did not see it that way in those times is really innocent of offence and beyond criticism by us now. Also, Blair's action in shooting the elephant was not damaging to them, he complied with their expectation at the cost of it being damaging to him (his mental state). Personally, I would not criticise him for it.

Of course, Blair could have decided not to shoot the elephant (in which case as a police officer he would have lost face and influence - James Cook made this mistake e.g. in NZ when Maori killed and ate some of his men and he did not retaliate as Maori society's expectations were). Blair could also have tried to modify the behaviour of the locals away from their society's acceptance of their behaviour - but then, would he not be the imperialist that he did not want to be and hence the contradictions that are seen in his works regarding his time in Burma? Similarly for the expatriates, if we look at them as individuals (in the collective sense, there were undoubtedly bad eggs too) they were just products of their time and place, and of society (both their own society and that of the locals), plus their depiction in the novel is exaggerated.

I am not saying that people who are misfits by committing crimes or behaviours unacceptable in the time and society that they live in should not be criticised, but I am saying that we are all products of the societies and times that we live in and as individuals we should not be criticised for that, especially by those looking back from the comfort of the future. I am also not absolving leaders from such behaviours or from promoting such behaviours in their own times; the likes of Stalin, for example, who Blair abhorred (for both Stalin's competitive political views and abuse of human rights reasons).

If I allude to your mentioning the rack to explain my comment about how we might be judged from the future. Today, most people in western societies, probably a huge majority, believe that most criminals should be incarcerated in gaol for serious crimes. There are, however, some who believe that doing so is inhumane, but among those they either do not have an alternative to suggest or else do not have one that is acceptable to society's majority. In two hundred years it may be that gaols are regarded as being incredibly inhumane (i.e. they have found a better solution for correction unknown to us now) in which case do we as their ancestors wish to be criticised for our behaviour in this which is the expectation of our present society?

Conversely, should it be that if in two hundred years time it is proven, or even just accepted as being so by society, that gaol sentences, perhaps even more toughly applied than now, are the only way to protect innocent civilians from serious crime, then is it fair for those of us now who oppose gaol terms to be criticised for those views by those looking back from the future (perhaps the criticism could be "They did not care enough about the innocent people who suffered violence and murder"?). In the first case people are just acting with the views held commonly by their society, which for the sake of good order is generally a good thing. And in the second the people are challenging the views commonly held by society, which is also a good thing but only, in my view, if they have a rational alternative to promote (they unfortunately often don't, in which case are they not just taking a lazy, feel good stance?).

Often, I myself think, our judgements of the behaviours of people back in the past are coloured. For example, while we may be critical of the man turning the wheels on the rack that stretched the victim to a painful crippling or death, are we as critical of the Maori who as part of a war party killed and ate his opponent and then shrunk his head to keep as a "memento" (for much of Maoridom intertribal battles were an accepted part of their society until relatively recent times)? Do we criticise the New Guinean head hunter for his practices that were quite ordinary within his society? Do we criticise the Maori chief who sent his tribe into a tribal battle more than the man who condemns the victim to the rack more? I think we often do not.

As I think Blair found, in the end perhaps one has to make the best of the conflicting demands of where one is and ones own views, and kill the elephant. Then, maybe, later write a novel and some essays about it all

.

John

PS. I should note that my own thoughts have not just arisen out of reading Blair's work. I had a great-grandfather who was in the Indian Civil Service and my Grandmother spent all her childhood and teenage years in India (although I know virtually nothing about their time there-my aged Grandmother's recollections were rather unreliable when I was old enough to ask questions, but I tried to get a flavour by other research), I have an interest in James Cook who tried to balance the demands of his own society (which, most closely, were represented by his crews that he had to live with) with those of the natives he came in contact with, and have worked with expatriates and locals in a developing country whose society's past (and some present) human rights values are, compared to what we in the West might think, in much conflict to our own (as were those of the society of the Polynesian immigrants to my own country).

04-24-2017, 08:32 PM	#10
AnotherCat .... Posts: 1,547 Karma: 18068960 Join Date: May 2012 Device: ....	Hi Bookpossum, I think you are taking my points too far. All I am saying is that in my view we should not be critical of our ancestors who were just doing what were normal or unavoidable behaviours in their own societies and times. First, let me give an example from Blair's own real life experience. In Shooting an Elephant, which essay of Blair's is claiming to report an actual incident he was involved in, there was no necessity for him to shoot the elephant but the large crowd of villagers basically pressured him into it against his better judgement. It was clearly not seen by the villagers as being a bad thing to shoot it and, of course, like the shooting of the tiger in Burmese Days, they got the meat in the end. I am assuming that most people in a western country today would disagree with the shooting. However, what I am suggesting is that a local in the crowd whose society did not see it that way in those times is really innocent of offence and beyond criticism by us now. Also, Blair's action in shooting the elephant was not damaging to them, he complied with their expectation at the cost of it being damaging to him (his mental state). Personally, I would not criticise him for it. Of course, Blair could have decided not to shoot the elephant (in which case as a police officer he would have lost face and influence - James Cook made this mistake e.g. in NZ when Maori killed and ate some of his men and he did not retaliate as Maori society's expectations were). Blair could also have tried to modify the behaviour of the locals away from their society's acceptance of their behaviour - but then, would he not be the imperialist that he did not want to be and hence the contradictions that are seen in his works regarding his time in Burma? Similarly for the expatriates, if we look at them as individuals (in the collective sense, there were undoubtedly bad eggs too) they were just products of their time and place, and of society (both their own society and that of the locals), plus their depiction in the novel is exaggerated. I am not saying that people who are misfits by committing crimes or behaviours unacceptable in the time and society that they live in should not be criticised, but I am saying that we are all products of the societies and times that we live in and as individuals we should not be criticised for that, especially by those looking back from the comfort of the future. I am also not absolving leaders from such behaviours or from promoting such behaviours in their own times; the likes of Stalin, for example, who Blair abhorred (for both Stalin's competitive political views and abuse of human rights reasons). If I allude to your mentioning the rack to explain my comment about how we might be judged from the future. Today, most people in western societies, probably a huge majority, believe that most criminals should be incarcerated in gaol for serious crimes. There are, however, some who believe that doing so is inhumane, but among those they either do not have an alternative to suggest or else do not have one that is acceptable to society's majority. In two hundred years it may be that gaols are regarded as being incredibly inhumane (i.e. they have found a better solution for correction unknown to us now) in which case do we as their ancestors wish to be criticised for our behaviour in this which is the expectation of our present society? Conversely, should it be that if in two hundred years time it is proven, or even just accepted as being so by society, that gaol sentences, perhaps even more toughly applied than now, are the only way to protect innocent civilians from serious crime, then is it fair for those of us now who oppose gaol terms to be criticised for those views by those looking back from the future (perhaps the criticism could be "They did not care enough about the innocent people who suffered violence and murder"?). In the first case people are just acting with the views held commonly by their society, which for the sake of good order is generally a good thing. And in the second the people are challenging the views commonly held by society, which is also a good thing but only, in my view, if they have a rational alternative to promote (they unfortunately often don't, in which case are they not just taking a lazy, feel good stance?). Often, I myself think, our judgements of the behaviours of people back in the past are coloured. For example, while we may be critical of the man turning the wheels on the rack that stretched the victim to a painful crippling or death, are we as critical of the Maori who as part of a war party killed and ate his opponent and then shrunk his head to keep as a "memento" (for much of Maoridom intertribal battles were an accepted part of their society until relatively recent times)? Do we criticise the New Guinean head hunter for his practices that were quite ordinary within his society? Do we criticise the Maori chief who sent his tribe into a tribal battle more than the man who condemns the victim to the rack more? I think we often do not. As I think Blair found, in the end perhaps one has to make the best of the conflicting demands of where one is and ones own views, and kill the elephant. Then, maybe, later write a novel and some essays about it all . John PS. I should note that my own thoughts have not just arisen out of reading Blair's work. I had a great-grandfather who was in the Indian Civil Service and my Grandmother spent all her childhood and teenage years in India (although I know virtually nothing about their time there-my aged Grandmother's recollections were rather unreliable when I was old enough to ask questions, but I tried to get a flavour by other research), I have an interest in James Cook who tried to balance the demands of his own society (which, most closely, were represented by his crews that he had to live with) with those of the natives he came in contact with, and have worked with expatriates and locals in a developing country whose society's past (and some present) human rights values are, compared to what we in the West might think, in much conflict to our own (as were those of the society of the Polynesian immigrants to my own country). Last edited by AnotherCat; 04-24-2017 at 09:04 PM.