'The right side of history' = 'God is on our side'?

[RainWithSunnySpells]

I'm sure that this isn't an original thought (it's probably been suggested before) however once I thought about this it made a lot of sense of the weird phrase TRSoH.

I always wondered how anyone can be on TRSoH in the present. Surely it is the people in the future who will judge that when they look back at the past? Therefore, does TRSoH essentially mean or is an equivalent to 'God is on our side'?

Oh incidentally eugenics was also hugely popular in the Labour Party. The Fabians were soaked in it, as were the Bloomsbury Group. So I never believe that one party has the moral high ground either.

OK, so you didn't understand what I wrote. Fair enough. I possibly could have explained it better. I'm not saying that the word for word meaning of the two phrases are exactly the same (the first one clearly doesn't include the word 'God' and second does, for example), I'm saying that maybe they function in the same way on the thought processes of the person that believes one (or both, I guess you can think that both God and History is on your side) of the phrases.

It’s a phrase that expresses a prediction of what is likely to be seen as moral in the future.

Sure. A prediction based on that persons beliefs and biases as to what they consider 'moral' now.

I understand what you are saying, but I wasn't really specifically thinking of your example (which I agree with). I was thinking more about the way that really believing that you are right (and that some greater idea, be that God or History or whatever) endorses your righteousness must have a psychological effect.

Does believing that 'History' is on your side function that same way as believing that 'God' is on your side?

Does that mean that you (general you) can justify violent acts (for example) or other harms in the name of this greater good?

People tend to assume that society is gradually becoming more tolerant and permissive. In some ways it is, but it‘s not that simple.

Decades ago, representatives of PIE attached themselves to gay rights activism and were allowed to discuss their (abhorrent) views on BBC TV. Attitudes to paedophilia have not exactly become more relaxed since then.

Mary Whitehouse turned out to be on the wrong side of history when it came to gay rights, and some of her religious beliefs seem very outdated today. However, she was ahead of her time in realising the link between pornography and sexual violence and correct in predicting that women would suffer as a result. She was also right about the dangers of allowing children to watch sexual or violent content.

Regarding gender ideology, I hope that as many more people learn about it, more will recognise its inherent misogyny and the conflict with women’s rights.

Interesting posts Permanent and Invisible. Thank you. A lot to think about there.

I have previously mused (and then backed away from) how the cohort of young people caught up in trans identity ideology would be viewed by a genuine eugenicist from the past. It would be an interesting thought experiment and possibly a very, very frightening one too, which is why I didn't dwell on it.

Many popular figures were keen on (eugenics), eg look at the books of Dorothy L Sayers

Was she keen on it? The only mention I can remember is her taking the Mickey out of an American postgrad for her enthusiasm for it.

@kilopascal maybe you're right, she was certainly Christian enough not to be kern on it (though there were Christian eugenicusys, weirdly). But in Gaudy Night wasn't Harriet perfectly fine discussing the sterilisation of the unfit?

Sure

I'll have to reread it (never a chore).

Eugenicists were biological essentialists. As such they have more in common with GC folks than Trans advocates.

How are you working that out?
Male =/= female is not the same as 'sterilise the underdog'.

The idea that history has 'sides' is illiterate anyway.

Well quite. When people say 'on the right side of history', it's almost as though they assume that those future people who will be judging us will be a perfect hive mind of justice and moral rectitude, whereas they will obviously just be fallible humans like us, with a wide range of different views and biases.

@GodessOfThunder I don't agree that GC ideas are biologically essentialist but I do know what you mean in that acknowledging that women are a sex class can lead to promoting the sacredness of women on the home and all that bullshit. What I'm suspicious of is ideas that are promoted as definitive moral progress by the great and the good when you can track obvious downsides. Right now, the idea of gender identity overriding sex has that status. As a feminist I spent a long time fighting the idea that my life should be limited by my biology. However, I never for a minute thought that it was limiting to say that i HAD a woman's body- quite the opposite.

As a feminist I spent a long time fighting the idea that my life should be limited by my biology. However, I never for a minute thought that it was limiting to say that i HAD a woman's body- quite the opposite.

That’s a great way of putting it @PermanentTemporary . I think a lot of women have got it backwards. Acknowledging your biology does not mean accepting culturally imposed limitations. Without acknowledging it, it’s impossible to tell the difference between what is a cultural limitation and what is an actual limitation that needs to be worked around or accommodated.

there is plenty of introductory reading matter out there on the web. Start with “biological essentialism”

Gender critical ideas are critical of gender. Which is to say, they question the idea that sex necessitates stereotypical ways of being. The opposite of biological essentialism.

To paraphrase someone else's analogy:

Biological essentialism: women should do the washing up
Feminism/Gender critical: sex has no bearing on who does the washing up
Genderism: if you are washing up you must be a woman.

not a good analogy. It doesn’t capture BE

The human urge for morality and transcendence is what lies behind the religious impusle too. They are intimately connected. Wokeists believe they are on the 'right side of history' because they see the concept of 'progress' as a moral curve arching towards righteousness, with time.

How can anyone know if they’re on the RSoH ?

The phrase that springs to mind is that history is written by the Victors.

(Autocorrect insists that Victors must be capitalised; who can say whether Autocorrect is the RSOH or not?)

We are essentially biological creatures of earth. There is no disputing that.

Human beings, though, also have the possibility to channel the instincts and drives and thus be seen to be 'transcending' them. We don't really ever transcend or escape them, though.

Perhaps we should ask Victor.

Autocorrect doesn't specify which Victor, alas.

Probably the grumpy one.

Generally though, initiatives affording more rights to minorities have been on the “right side of history” when looked at retrospectively.

I am no Whig, but the above is certainly true.

Of course you may argue that in the case of advancing trans right women’s safety is potentially also undermined, therefore it doesn’t “count” as an example of the above.

If they stick with the right tribe - the tribe that belives in 'progress' - whereby progress is measured in ever greater freedom for the individual.

That tribe is now the wokesters - those who hold to the three post modernistic theories of 'Intersectionalism' 'Queer Theory' and 'Critical Race Theory'.