Your points about connecting the past to the present are explained very well. Certainly the skills of critical thinking are useful for connecting the Red Scare to current paranoia about CRT, for example. It is important to fully understand where there are similarities and differences. The same applies to connecting the present to the past, and critical thinking becomes even more essential. Contemporary journalism sometimes forgets that we can't layer a set of 2022 values on decisions and practices made 50, 100, or 200 years ago. As you say, we can make connections based on categories, but we have to resist judging the past based on our current standards and cultural characteristics.
Thanks for your reply, Joel. In some ways, I agree - certainly, a haphazard and simplified layering of contemporary values over the past can lead to irresponsible, oversimplified thinking about past, present, and the evolution between. At the same time, I do believe that the affective and moral responses we have to past history are important, and often even vital, sources of information and thinking about both past and present. I would be surprised, and taken aback, if my students didn't respond to past atrocities, for example, with a level of disgust or upset; their contemporary values do govern, and often motivate their responses to what they learn. Those responses, to me, are an invitation to deeper critical thinking -- so to me, it's not a question of resisting judgment as much as it is not relying only on instinctive judgments.
This is an interesting perspective that I hadn't really thought about in this context. I do think you are right that we can't apply all our current day thinking to past events - and yes, contemporary journalism certainly forgets this at times. But I think that the reaction people or students have to past events (even ones that were progressive for their time) shows how far we have come. I'm thinking about conversations I've had with students about President Lincoln and how his main motivation was preserving the union - rather than ending slavery. That distinction can obviously make for some interesting debate which I think is good. It reminds us of what our values were and where we are now. Ultimately I think the more discussion and the more critical thinking the better.
Your points about connecting the past to the present are explained very well. Certainly the skills of critical thinking are useful for connecting the Red Scare to current paranoia about CRT, for example. It is important to fully understand where there are similarities and differences. The same applies to connecting the present to the past, and critical thinking becomes even more essential. Contemporary journalism sometimes forgets that we can't layer a set of 2022 values on decisions and practices made 50, 100, or 200 years ago. As you say, we can make connections based on categories, but we have to resist judging the past based on our current standards and cultural characteristics.
Thanks for your reply, Joel. In some ways, I agree - certainly, a haphazard and simplified layering of contemporary values over the past can lead to irresponsible, oversimplified thinking about past, present, and the evolution between. At the same time, I do believe that the affective and moral responses we have to past history are important, and often even vital, sources of information and thinking about both past and present. I would be surprised, and taken aback, if my students didn't respond to past atrocities, for example, with a level of disgust or upset; their contemporary values do govern, and often motivate their responses to what they learn. Those responses, to me, are an invitation to deeper critical thinking -- so to me, it's not a question of resisting judgment as much as it is not relying only on instinctive judgments.
This is an interesting perspective that I hadn't really thought about in this context. I do think you are right that we can't apply all our current day thinking to past events - and yes, contemporary journalism certainly forgets this at times. But I think that the reaction people or students have to past events (even ones that were progressive for their time) shows how far we have come. I'm thinking about conversations I've had with students about President Lincoln and how his main motivation was preserving the union - rather than ending slavery. That distinction can obviously make for some interesting debate which I think is good. It reminds us of what our values were and where we are now. Ultimately I think the more discussion and the more critical thinking the better.