Looking back - where would "current" you stand throughout history? (1 Viewer)

[The Gator]

As we look back, can you picture your current self - without the benefit of hindsight - at various inflection points in our country's history?

Put yourself in the late 1700's living in one of the colonies.  Where do you stand?  Do you support the established government?  Are you loyal to the crown?  How do you react to news of the Boston Massacre - where unruly colonists (mobs, if you will) attacked British soldiers, forcing the British to fire back, killing 5 citizens?  What about when the Sons of Liberty loot and destroy over $1M (current value) of private property?  Are you siding with the rebels, or with law and order?  When those rebels eventually take up arms against the government and declare war - where would your current self place your loyalty?

Fast forward to the mid 1800's - you are in a divided family.  One brother has left to fight with the Union, another brother has left to fight with the confederacy.  What do you do?  Do you stand for state's rights, and defend your state, and the right to continue to treat some people as chattel?  Or, do you fight for the side that is the aggressor, but trying to end slavery?  Its hard to picture yourself in this situation without the benefit of hindsight - but part of the question boils down to morality, and part boils down to how comfortable you are with status quo v. change.

Fast forward to the mid 1900's - where do you stand on Civil Rights in the 1950's (not where do you stand now)?  Would you have the courage to stand up for the rights of Black Americans - putting your own life, and perhaps your family, in danger?  Would you have opposed civil rights - because your social group peer pressure was such that you would have stood up for protecting "White" rights?  (Or a more ominous question - would you have been a racist in the 1960's. without the benefit of 60 years of progressive improvements?)

In the 1970's - a little closer to home for some - would you have protested the Vietnam War, or supported it, as a patriotic duty?  Would you have been supporting the growing ERA movement for equal rights for women?

Throughout our history, there have been a number of inflection points, where we have found great struggles.  To me, the ideal of the country is not its rigidity - but rather its flexibility and growth.  I don't think the founding fathers created a finished product - I think they started an on-going evolution.  We have to continually fight for the "more perfect union" as it does not yet exist.  I don't think that anarchy has to reign, but I do think that we the people, have to ensure that we grow as a people, and as a country.  

I don't know what I would have done in those various inflection points.  I know that I am one who is open to change, when it makes sense, and so I would like to think that current Gator would have stood up when it mattered in the past.  I think I would have seen the possibilities of a better future with a revolution.  I think if my morality was a constant, I would have opposed slavery and would have not been afraid to voice that opinion.  I think if I had been old enough in the 1960s - I would have wanted to be in the south standing up for, and with, Black americans.

And, as I sit here today - I feel the country is at another inflection point, on so many different levels.  We have lost our way, and seemingly lost our will to be great.  I am truly saddened to think about how this country was forged, and how its been shaped over the years by men and women standing up for what is right - we are missing that right now.  The pandemic is a massive failure across all levels of government and people.  We have a leadership void.  We have people protesting for the right to infect others as they please.  We have become a nation of individuals, with nobody looking out for the collective.  That is not progress, that is regression. 

On other fronts, we have people fighting to revert to how things "used to be".  That is also not progress.  The world is evolving. We must evolve with it, or get left behind.  Black Lives Matter precisely because "All men (and women) were created equal".  Until we recognize that until BLM, "All Lives (cannot) Matter."    Until we recognize that these are values worth fighting for, or protesting for, or even causing discomfort - then we have stopped growing as a country.  And the great experiment started by the founding fathers will come to a premature end.

Its time to figure out where you stand (and where you want to stand when the history books look back at this era).  Think about where you would have stood at various times, and where you would have wanted to stand, with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[AAABatteries]

Interesting thought experiment but seems impossible to answer.  Most people consider themselves much more moral and against the grain than they really are.  I'll attempt to be honest - I don't like confrontation at all, I do whatever it takes to not rock the boat.  I could easily see myself going along with whatever majority or group I was stuck in during those times.

 

[Zow]

I admit that I at least found John Calhoun's theories to be logical when I studied them so while I wish I could say I'd be totally against them at the time I may not have. Also, if I was set up well in the class system, I think it's just human nature to not want to change that position drastically. 

So, yeah, impossible to answer and very situation specific but if I'm being honest with myself I probably wouldn't have been totally altruistic. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Would you have been supporting the growing ERA movement for equal rights for women?

This is an easy one.  I don't support the ERA now in 2020, so I'm real sure I wouldn't have supported it in the 1970s.

 

[The Gator]

Interesting thought experiment but seems impossible to answer.  Most people consider themselves much more moral and against the grain than they really are.  I'll attempt to be honest - I don't like confrontation at all, I do whatever it takes to not rock the boat.  I could easily see myself going along with whatever majority or group I was stuck in during those times.

Its is.

Part of this is watching Hamilton too many times, and also reflecting on the life of John Lewis - and looking on with some envy, that they stood up when it mattered.

I also cringe when I hear people who talk about protests in a way where they are fine with protests, as long as the protests are not disruptive.  Change happens when people are disruptive, not when they politely present their views.

I can't say, with any degree of certainty, how much risk I would have taken in any of those historic contexts.  It is easy to do so with the benefit of hindsight - but its hard to know what you would do when the risks are real.  I do admire those in the past, and those in the present, who are willing to standup in the face of adversity and create disruption in the name of progress.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I often wonder what life would be like if my descendants didn't leave England to come to the US in 1600's. One of our direct descendants was a physician to one of the Kings of England. We were suppose to inherit a castle, but someone got ticked off and threw "us" out of "the family".  Jumping to the 60's, I am thankful my dad missed a flight from US to Europe for the 1961 World Figure Skating Championships as the plane crashed on approach in Brussels and all 72 passengers, including the US Figure Skating team died. I can only image my life would have been different if he was on that flight. Later in the 60's we use to hear "what cities the riots were now moving to."  I never have  thought one race, or sex,  should be specifically given advantages or disadvantages.  When I travel, especially to other areas of the world like Europe and India, I do put myself in the "time" of significant historical eras for the region, but more imagine what life was like in general and not supporting one specific group or idea.  In the 70's I was directly involved with busing of students from the city in Dallas to the suburbs. I thought it was quite an inconvenience for the students coming from the city, but I also made some great new friends. 

 

[huthut]

Sort of reversing the premise, but there was nothing unique about 1930's Germans that made them inherently more Nazi than anyone else would be. I think it is easy in hindsight to be like "no, I would not be pro-slavery/segregationist/Nazi" or anything else that is now seen as negative, but I think that if people here were cloned and reborn in 1915 Germany you would not have a difference in the percentage of Nazi party followers than you did in reality. If you were born in 1940 Alabama you would more likely be a segregationist than if you were born in 1975 San Francisco. Your life circumstances determine who you are more than your genes IMO. If I was born in Oklahoma or Sweden I am sure I would be a completely different person, even if I would look identical to how I look now. 

I always think about this with my kids, where if a 4 year old is throwing a tantrum because they want to eat X instead of Y, or you took their tablet away, how would they be different if it was 600 years ago, or 5000 years ago. Would 5000 year ago 4 year old kid be throwing a tantrum because they want the equivalent of a peanut butter sandwich instead of mac and cheese, or would they be like "food, yay, I like eating so I don't die". 

 

[-jb-]

Awesome posts so far. This is an interesting thread. I tend to agree with everyone’s sentiment that it’s impossible to answer. I’ve been binge watching a series and the last two seasons take place in pre-revolution America, mostly North Carolina. I hadn’t given too much thought to what I would do until watching it, and they’ve done a really good job with character conflicts based on where each ones circumstance has led them.  Do you fall in line with the king because you received a large land grant and are doing well in the new world, or fight the tax oppression because you’re barely getting by as a blacksmith?  
 

My family and I have been very fortunate over the last few decades, and if we had the same wealth and means as we do now but in the 1700s, it would be very difficult to fight for the cause.

 

[supermike80]

I'm gonna guess this was copied and pasted from Facebook.  It screams it.

How could anyone really answer those questions? 

 

[zftcg]

I'll go more recent/granular: I was living in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, although I was nowhere near Lower Manhattan. I remember reading about the people who were in the second tower, and how they reacted after the first one was hit. The announcement on the PA system encouraged people to remain at their desks, with the thought that they'd be safer inside than risking it outside. Many people followed directions and stayed where they were, but some people (especially those who had been there for the '93 bombing attempt) got the heck out of dodge.

A year or so afterward, USA Today did a really fascinating study that catalogued every death that day, and their conclusion was that almost across the board, your chances of surviving depended entirely on where you were at the moment each plane hit the tower. If you were at or above the point of impact, you didn't make it (the few exceptions were people able to make it to the one staircase on the opposite corner of the building that remained intact). If you were below the point of impact, you survived (the exceptions being the 10 or so unlucky people hit by falling debris and, of course, the first responders who rushed into the building).

So I've often wondered, if I had been on a high floor in the second tower, would I have stayed at my desk or left? Knowing my personality, I'm pretty sure I would have just followed directions and stayed put.