Across history, there have been many accounts of people being ruthlessly harmful to other people for differences that are out of the ordinary and out of people’s control. Millions have died for no reason due to hatred or greed, often by seeing their peers as lesser or as materials to be used. 

Many people seem to believe that people of the past should have more leniency when it comes to what they did in their life primarily because the time period or situation was drastically different than today’s views.

People understand when someone along the lines Hitler or Leopold II is mentioned because they slaughtered mass amounts of people. Those people are highlights of unjust behavior but aren’t the only ones who conducted it throughout history. 

There’s a theme that someone more positively viewed in history is more justified despite ulterior actions. For example, Abraham Lincoln had believed that African Americans and other people of color are not equal. 

He had stated in a speech, “…there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man is in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.” 

The quote is him regarding people of color as humans who should be free, yet still lesser. That is a racist statement. It is crucial to bring to attention that this doesn’t make his actions against slavery any less influential to the civil rights movement. 

The idea is that his views had a second side to them. Both sides of his history do exist and to ignore one side purely because of status wouldn’t be a legitimate standpoint. Many people look over the icon’s actions purely because of status. Often times, the status wasn’t earned by any kind of pure methods. 

Other people have argued that a discussion about a character looting a store as a lot of friends and family were doing the same is different from a debate about if historic figures of the past, although they are more similar than it seems at first glance. 

The argument around it is that people in history are more allowed to have had acted upon crude ideals because it was common in their time though the character who looted the store shouldn’t have any leniency in the judgment they face. However, those same people state that Leopold II, who had commanded artillery of soldiers to enslave citizens of the Congo for the resources, should not receive that luxury and that it would be unjust if he would. 

It is the same concept that one should get a free pass because the people closest to them weren’t opposed to what the character is doing. In fact, it could be argued that under those circumstances that the looter has more leniency since their loved ones were completing the action to a greater level than them. Thus, the time period they were born in and other people of the time’s behavior doesn’t give leeway for the predecessor’s wrongful actions.

The acts through the past were often severely uninclusive, traumatizing, torturous for the victims, in the person in charge’s favor with suppressive manors, and overall going along with citizens who were only concerned for themselves. 

Now, it is more commonly understood that shaming someone for their size and enslaving other humans is horrendous and hurtful to individuals and entire groups of people. It is an instinctively toxic thing. 

That feeling holds true with people from the old days, the only difference being that they paid no mind to it. Wrongdoing towards other humans is naturally a repulsive feeling that happens. A minor version is when you did something wrong as a kid but felt bad even though you hadn’t been previously chastised for it. Or when you would get queazy/frightened from too vulgar of content.

It isn’t uncommon for people in the past to have had subjective views, but there were still people who understood what was happening was terrible. Peers do have influence in what you believe but there isn’t brainwashing. 

There were people like William Lloyd Garrison and Director John Brennan who created groups and places where people can be themselves without it being a popular opinion of the time or an issue that involves them directly. The fact that there were ones that listened to that instinctual repulsiveness that came with harm proves that peer influence doesn’t completely drive one’s way of thinking. 

People of today are as such because of past progressive movements, as well. If the issues and stereotypes that went around harming repressed groups weren’t at their core negative and cynical; activists wouldn’t be able to break through to the general public and make their purpose for their movements a currently commonly known thing. From a lack of justifiable reasoning as to why one should harm another, the normality fades with history leading way for acceptance.

Although, the purpose of this article isn’t to spread hate and disgust of others based on imperfections. It is to bring forth the idea that people are complex. People are layered, like ogres, and should be treated as such.

Not everyone is going to abide by all progressive concepts and people don’t need to disregard them for the fact. Instead, they should know what they know and accept the fact of things. 

Icons aren’t perfect, though people can still appreciate their good work. Various people can represent good, love, and acceptance.  More so, one should, as the NAI Social Studies teacher Mr. Moore says “Debate ideas, not people.”