Idealizing the past

People tend to idealize "the past" when they're having trouble coping with "the present."

Civilization is always changing, and--short of an asteroid impact--it doesn't go in reverse

I must disagree with your post.

Civilizations (especially "modern Socialist" ones) have changed for the worse.
Africa, once the bread basket of the world ... is now a hell on earth. Most of the former colonies chose Marxist-Communism and oppress their people (mostly tribal minorities) after their European masters left. In 1994, the Liberal Holocaust in Rwanda, caused the deaths of 975,000 Rwandans while the UN and US Government chose not to intervene (the UN General in charge, Gen. Dallaire was *ordered* not to intervene; the Clinton White House chose *not* to intervene).

Civilization, especially modern civilizations tend to do lots of killing in the name of "socialism."

In Christ,
Brother Mark +

jayem said:

Why do so many people idealize the past? We see it all the time. This romanticized, and even mythologized notion that things were so much better in times past. And if society could just return to the beliefs, practices, and cultural norms of yesteryear, we'd all be so much better off. It's an awfully persistent delusion, and it resists historical facts to the contrary. (Like when contemporaneous writings from those favored periods also bemoan their present and hanker after their past.) Besides, it's so unrealistic. Civilization is always changing, and--short of an asteroid impact--it doesn't go in reverse. (Though what's worrisome are those folks so extreme in devotion to the past that they would seem to welcome, or wish for widespread catastrophe if it would reverse time.) I've read various psychological explanations for the nostalgia trap, though none are very convincing to me. Is it just human nature? What do others think?

Click to expand...

You may be right in some ways about civilization "always changing" - but you forget that the civilization of the present is the cumulative sum of all the knowledge, traditions, and practices of the past. To blithely dismiss "the past" as somehow "passe" or psychologically bereft of reason and trapped in nostalgia, while altogether ignoring the past's relevance to the present seems a rather naive view.

I think such a view assumes human nature somehow "changes" from generation to generation too - that a changing civilization necessarily implies a change of human nature too - that in such a change human nature can "improve" or become "better" and therefore improve or better civilization. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at human nature in the past and compare it to the present - you see the same thing. Different environments, different technologies, etc. - but human nature is no different now than it was 1,000, 2,000 or even 5,000 years ago.

Yet one thing is true - and bespeaks of a persistent delusion from generation to generation - we never seem to learn from our past. Deluded by the notion that "this generation" of human nature can somehow improve on last generation's human nature, some in "this generation" always seem to think there is nothing to be learned from the last. Indeed, such a delusion ignores the very concrete fact that "this generation" is basically little more than a replication of the previous generation (and of generations before that) in different surroundings maybe, with different technologies, but other than environmentally, substantially the same.

Moreover, the hubris of "this generation" has always permitted them to conveniently ignore the very real fact that they were raised and taught by the "past generation" (who were raised and taught by the generation before them, and so on...) - that who they are is absolutely a function of previous generations - and that what they think they know as "new" or "enlightened" is little more than the hubris that precedes this realization. Most shed such presumption in their early-mid twenties.

People idealize the past because the presents sucks, and they fear the future. Or, they lack the imagination or knowledge to conceive of a better future. Or they do imagine a better future, but lack the moral commitment to do what it takes to bring it about.

People don't idealise the past for it's own sake. They idealise only parts of the past that they value and that have since been lost. Like a diamond that one once had and cannot find, he mourns over his loss and longs to be in that past moment where he held it for the last time. It's only natural, and it goes hand-in-hand with a person's preference of values, and in particular values that they believe are being eroded in the modern era. I, for example, miss the days when cartoons were actually entertaining, watching new episodes of Seinfeld, and when trains would actually run on time.

Watergirl said:

The past wasn't perfect, but there were certainly a lot of things about it that were better than today.

Click to expand...

Could you give what time in history you think "a lot of things" were better than today?

You weren't subjected to profanity everywhere and everything wasn't about sex.

Click to expand...

This a highly general statement. It is an exaggaration to describe "everything" as about sex. I suspect that is a deliberately negative perspective of some aspects of popular culture and a concern in general about the pornographic industry.

I suspect you do not condone pornography full stop and thus view any publicity of it, or easy access to it as regressive and damaging to society. I do not share this view. I do however believe that a different society that would actively prohibit and condemn all pornography is one that has a totalitarian government in principle, and ought to be condemned.

People understood that some behavior was acceptable, while some was not.

Click to expand...

Behavioural constraint has always existed. It has changed, as we have progressed but there has always been acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in civil society. What behaviour are you specifically referring to?

People actually dressed up to go out and, I know this is a really foreign concept here in this little slice of Laodicea, but people even showed their reverence for God by dressing for church as if they were going to the house of God.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in a God and especially do not believe that churches of any denomination have any heightened authority. This has no relevance to me.

Our children had real role models. They weren't perfect, but they didn't flaunt their sins and their sins weren't celebrated.

Click to expand...

You know, there are many political and social role models. I expect you are referring only to the celebrity 'role models'. An inevitable response to the fact that entertainers (musicians, actors, etc) have all seen their profiles raise as higher demand for their services took hold.

Motherhood actually had value and wasn't mocked.

Click to expand...

Who mocks motherhood?

Comedians were funny and singers became successful because they were talented and not just because they looked good in a pair of tight jeans.

Click to expand...

I know many fantastic comedians and fantastic bands still going. What music and comedians are you referring to?

Men really were men and weren't whiney, girly little boys. Women were ladies and dressed like it and acted like it.

Click to expand...

Why should men have to adapt their lifestyle to your rigid requirements? Why should women have to adapt their lifestyle to your rigid requirements? What part of liberty will they be utilizing by capitulating their own will to your requirements?

The government didn't try to regulate every detail of our lives and we weren't mocked and called names if we questioned the government or believed that government had an obligation to spend our tax money responsibly.

Click to expand...

Again, I'd need to know what time period you're talking about.

We had presidents we could be proud of. Children actually said things like "Yes sir" and "Yes ma'am" instead of "*** you old man!"

Click to expand...

Why is it so important to express subservience to someone purely on age difference?

and they called adults by their first names.

Click to expand...

I call adults by their first names.

A man who cheated on his wife countless times would never have been hailed as a hero, while a man who stepped down from a lucrative career to take care of his dying wife would have been. But these days, Tiger Woods is the hero and Phil Mickleson, who is truly a hero, is completely ignored.

Click to expand...

Who hails Tiger Woods as a hero? Who hails adulterers as heroes?

Art Vandelay said:

People don't idealise the past for it's own sake. They idealise only parts of the past that they value and that have since been lost. Like a diamond that one once had and cannot find, he mourns over his loss and longs to be in that past moment where he held it for the last time. It's only natural, and it goes hand-in-hand with a person's preference of values, and in particular values that they believe are being eroded in the modern era. I, for example, miss the days when cartoons were actually entertaining, watching new episodes of Seinfeld, and when trains would actually run on time.

Click to expand...

I can idealize lots of parts of the past. I grew up in the San Fernando Valley. The outskirts of Los Angeles. From a kids standpoint it was better than today. There was open space to play. Now most of that is under 'new' houses. Then there was plenty of water, now shortages seem cronic. Yes in many ways better for the (much fewer) people that were here then.

But that is from the view of someone who was here then and now. Not that many can make the same claim. From the view of someone from a less hospitable climate the view should be different. In short my idealized past is simply a view of a time before the great masses of people discoverd a nice place.

It's weird that people idealize a time when women were technically property of men, blacks were slaves, native americans were forced onto reservations and racism was accepted.

I am Chinese-American. Prior to 1965 and repeal of the Chinese Exclusionary Act, I was not allowed into the country because I belonged to the "mongoloid" race. I am currently dating a "white guy" but marriage with him would be illegal even 50 years ago.

I was in the school of engineering in college, which saw few females even into the 1970's. And I am currently in medical school, a vocation that women were strongly discouraged, if not outright banned from, until modern times.

I'd also point out that the idea of having Muslims, Jews and Catholics friends, seeing them attend college together, having leadership positions and proudly discussing their religion would be unthinkable through the 1960's.

I remember reading that when Kennedy was running as president, he had to reassure many conservative protestants that he would not take orders from the Pope. I remember learning that during WWII, most Western countries, including the US, had significantly low Jewish quotas and that many Jews could not flee to those countries as a reslt. Some ended up in China simply because it was one of the few countries that did not have a Jewish quota nor require a visa to enter.

I had a black friend who told me of a great-aunt who was raped by the white owner of the house she cleaned and the family could do nothing about that. Abuses by white bosses were common occurrences and accepted as part of life.

The disabled and mentally ill were warehoused in institutions if they were lucky, killed if they lived in a poorer country. And shall I list out the diseases and medical conditions most people would die of if not for modern medicine?

I'm sure the 'good old days' were great for some people. But I think those that think it would be great for them, forget that old prejudices may also have applied to them had they been alive 'back then'.

While hating Catholics and Jews are no longer acceptable, we still think it's ok to denigrate Muslims. While we have come to accept Asians in our society, it's still 'controversial' to accept gays. And while many acknowledge that allowing women to work is a good thing, society forgets that women in the past have always worked, but it was usually in dead end jobs, with poor salaries and little chances of advancement. And women who stayed home had no choice in their chosen profession, and still worked a ton of hours making soap, hand washing clothes, and birthing ten kids.

The good ol' days? Only if you were white, rich, protestant, straight, male, not disabled and healthy.

I guess the values and society were OK if you were a white puritanical christian male, but for everybody else it sucked. You're not going to see any black people looking back fondly, nor many of any other minority. Go back more than a hundred years and women were still treated like property.

As for people dressing up, profanity, etc... Little more than meaningless theatre. People don't care much anymore because it simply doesn't matter. Although I was always puzzled by the dressing up for church since one of the core teachings of Jesus was looking past the superficial and accepting people despite such trivialities. One would think that church is the last place you need to dress up for.

The past is basically a cespool of racism, sexism, meaningless formalities, double standards, and tradition for the sake of tradition. The present is nowhere near perfect but for many of us our very existence would not be tolerated in the past. Pretty much anything is a step up from that.

One of the guys I played Rugby with is a bit older than I am. I figure he should be about 80 now. He grew up in the South. There was a Black man who sometimes worked for them. If he happened to be working late his father would walk home with that worker, because a black man in a white neighborhood after dark could easily end up dead. Today there are many neighborhoods where the reverse is the case. Both situations suck. But at least today those who would be murders are not upstanding pillars of society.

jayem said:

Why do so many people idealize the past? We see it all the time. This romanticized, and even mythologized notion that things were so much better in times past. And if society could just return to the beliefs, practices, and cultural norms of yesteryear, we'd all be so much better off. It's an awfully persistent delusion, and it resists historical facts to the contrary. (Like when contemporaneous writings from those favored periods also bemoan their present and hanker after their past.) Besides, it's so unrealistic. Civilization is always changing, and--short of an asteroid impact--it doesn't go in reverse. (Though what's worrisome are those folks so extreme in devotion to the past that they would seem to welcome, or wish for widespread catastrophe if it would reverse time.) I've read various psychological explanations for the nostalgia trap, though none are very convincing to me. Is it just human nature? What do others think?

Click to expand...

Most people remake the past into what they would like the present to be.

They then turn around and say "oh if only we could return to the good old times"

Unfortunately the good old times never existed.

It is really just a way to construct a kind of argument from authority about the way things should be now, without having to justify why you think things being in such a such a way are a good thing.

ArnautDaniel said:

Most people remake the past into what they would like the present to be.

They then turn around and say "oh if only we could return to the good old times"

Unfortunately the good old times never existed.

It is really just a way to construct a kind of argument from authority about the way things should be now, without having to justify why you think things being in such a such a way are a good thing.

Click to expand...

Not to forget that alot of people's views on the past suffer from the "ostrich effect"*, that is to say just because they dont hear or see anything from that time about crime,poverty,injustices etc they assume it didn't exist back then. Post-WW2 sitcoms and movies were idolizing an ideal held by the "ruling class" at the time and in some cases are down right propaganda. Leave it to Beaver is about as realistic in it display of the 50's as Lord of Rings is of the medieval ages.


*There's a childrens story here in Sweden that the reason the ostrich sticks its head into the ground is because it believes that if it cant see you you're not there.