Why Was This Man Caged?

[piggynose]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53917733

[bhg481]

I wonder what current-day practices will be considered to be unacceptable in a few years' time. Will, say, putting people in prison for committing a crime be classed as a very uncivilised way of treating people?

[woofgang]

I still think that this is different because what they did was not just wrong but illegal when it was done; also there were attempts to cover up the illegality at the time and subsequently which demonstrates to me that they knew that they had done wrong. This isn't just something that we judge now as wrong and distasteful, it was legally wrong at the time. I get that you can't bring dead men into court to be tried for their crime, but I do think that the organisation should acknowledge that LEGAL wrongdoing happened, which it has.

[woofgang]

again bhg, I get the argument that historical actions should be judged by the laws and expectations of the time but this was wrong and illegal at the time it was done and known to be wrong and illegal because it was covered up.

[pixie374]

I'm sure you're right, woof, but he died over 100 years ago. It's too late for justice or apologies now.

[woofgang]

I don't think its too late for the organisation to publicly acknowledge the wrongdoing in its past. In this case, it can't say "it was ok at the time" "everyone was doing it" "nobody knew"

[pixie374]

Nothing wrong with it, but it seems pointless, presuming they have already stopped. There isn't really an aim, as nobody involved is still alive, nor anyone to apologise to.

[naomi24]

Woofgang, //I don't think its too late for the organisation to publicly acknowledge the wrongdoing in its past.//

It has.

//the Bronx Zoo in New York has finally expressed regret.//

[Jackdaw33]

Let us not forget that many so-called 'freak' shows were nothing more than cons. Who can forget the bearded lady? Amazing what you can do with a bit of hair and some spirit gum.

[allenlondon]

Andy Hughes "accepting them as being the norms of the time is appropriate".

Cobblers.

We do NOT (if we're thinking civilised people) accept the norms of times. We make judgments.

In the 1700s in this country, the Slave Trade was the 'norm of the times'. So it was okay? Dickens (who I chucked in as an example of 'personal morality') behaved as men did, as they still do. Right or wrong? It might have been the 'norm of the times' (it might still be!) but you have to make a judgment.

Watch out for those fence posts; they can be sharp if you slip.

A

[woofgang]

allen, I think its two discussions. I think to say that something was "the norm of the times" does explain, not excuse, the behaviour to an extent....not totally because obvs there are people who don't believe its right and normal and who campaign for, and achieve, change.

This is a case where it wasn't the norm of the times. What was done was either slavery, or kidnapping and false imprisonment, or both. The people who did it knew at the time that they were doing something wrong and illegal and tried to cover up and deny whet they had done. That, to my mind, makes it worse.

[pastafreak]

Jackdaw @ 10:45...you need to educate yourself. Hirsutism occurs in women for various reasons, so no need to believe it was a con.

https://www.allure.com/story/women-with-pcos-facial-hair-beard-interviews

[pastafreak]

Its interesting. Reading the link, I was shocked not only that this happened but that it drew crowds to the zoo. I was making the assumption that by 1900-1910 New York's population would have had a fair % of Blacks, that Black people were not "exotic ", and to be gawped at, and finally that most people were better informed than to come and stare. Apparently NY's population was almost 50% immigrant at the time, but only 2% or so Black.
I really would not have thought this to be the "norm"...but minstrel shows were still popular. So who knows...

[allenlondon]

Woofgang. You write "This is a case where it wasn't the norm of the times", and you're quite right, of course.

The likes of Andy-Hughes use the argument 'norm of the times' very loosely, and without much thought, it seems.

I do find it very much a 'blokes'' argument, although honorary blokes, like naomi24, also use it as a screen behind which to skulk.

Sorry, shouldn't be trying to involve you in my little feuds.

A

[iluvmargie]

I don't need to stick up for naomi, I know she is more than capable to do that herself, but an 'honorary bloke'?? You really are a rude little man aren't you allen??

[allenlondon]

iluvmargie. You write “You really are a rude little man aren't you”.

Well, it’s a point of view. Others might say I merely describe what’s in front of me.

[naomi24]

Allen, //I do find it very much a 'blokes'' argument, although honorary blokes, like naomi24,//

What’s up, Allen? Can’t you cope with educated women or are you simply a bigoted misogynist? Whichever way, your attitude confirms you to be a small man indeed - and not in the physical sense. :o)

Thanks Margie. Much appreciated.

[allenlondon]

Very good, naomi, QED.

[mushroom25]

// Dickens’ treatment of his wives comes to mind. //

for the record, Dickens only ever had one wife, Catherine Hogarth. he subsequently had a mistress, Ellen Ternan, but they never married.

does making judgments on history by today's standards include making stuff up?

[andy-hughes]

allenlondon - // Andy Hughes "accepting them as being the norms of the time is appropriate".

Cobblers.

We do NOT (if we're thinking civilised people) accept the norms of times. We make judgments. //

We may well make judgements based on how we think and feel today, but that does not prevent us from accepting that this is how things were then, and accepting that we can do nothing about that simple fact.

Accepting is not the same as agreeing with, or sanctioning.



// In the 1700s in this country, the Slave Trade was the 'norm of the times'. So it was okay? //

The So Rule comes into play once again.

I did not say that being the norm was in any way the same as being 'OK' - clearly it was not, anymore than the Nazi perception of non-Arian people was 'OK' but that does not mean it was not the norm for them, because it clearly was.

// Dickens (who I chucked in as an example of 'personal morality') behaved as men did, as they still do. Right or wrong? It might have been the 'norm of the times' (it might still be!) but you have to make a judgment. //

I have no idea why you single out one individual from history to use as an unsuitable comparison in terms of individual morality. What Charles Dickens did was a matter for his own conscience, he was not adopting a mode of behaviour that was considered appropriate for everyone in his society.

// Watch out for those fence posts; they can be sharp if you slip.

A //

I wouldn't know, as regulars of long standing on here will attest, I have never sat on a fence in my life!!!!

[andy-hughes]

allenlondon - // The likes of Andy-Hughes use the argument 'norm of the times' very loosely, and without much thought, it seems. //

First of all, please don't use the term 'the likes of ...' to refer to me, it is offensive.

Second of all, please don't presume that you know how much thought I put into anything I post on here, it is arrogance, to assume the thoughts of a stranger.

// I do find it very much a 'blokes'' argument, although honorary blokes, like naomi24, also use it as a screen behind which to skulk. //

A 'bloke's argument'??? What on earth are you on about. A subject like this does not divide along gender lines, unless you are still living in 1973.

// Sorry, shouldn't be trying to involve you in my little feuds. //

That's the first sensible thing in this post - no, you shouldn't.