You know about perspective, right? It's that art technique painters figured out in the Renaissance – a trick of drawing lines on a flat page so that they give the illusion of depth. It's an artifice, but it helps the viewer get a better idea of how tall, wide, whatever, an object is. Perspective is a useful deception.

So what do we mean when we say that we need to see human events in perspective?

Well….

What we think we mean (I think) is that we have the 'right' view of things. If we know all the background, we suppose, we'll be better informed. If we talk to the 'right' people (meaning the experts we respect), we'll know what to believe. If we have the benefit of hindsight, known as historical perspective, we'll be correct in our judgements – unlike those knuckleheads in the past.

What we really mean (I think) is that we use certain tricks of reasoning to give ourselves the impression that we've gained a vantage point from which to judge events. This artificial vantage point can range from the extremely useful, such as figuring out how to deconstruct bad texts, to the mentally lazy, like letting people on television do your 'thinking' for you. (A $25 bill? Really?) Perspective may be in the eye of the beholder.

When you write about events, current or in the Past – that country from whose bourne no time traveller returns unscathed – you need some sort of perspective. But you've got to draw the lines in a way that the audience can interpret. And brethren and sistren, the audience these days is thick as two planks.

Why do I say this unpopular and possibly undemocratic thing? Because I have, unfortunately, been following 'the news'. I know I shouldn't, but it's a presidential election year. The current Republican frontrunner for the nomination has said the following, among many other things:

• The sitting president's birth certificate is a forgery. (The State of Hawaii says emphatically that it isn't, and to stop asking for copies.)
• Mexico should be made to pay for a wall separating it from the US. (This border is over 3,000 km in length.) This wall will solve immigration issues.
• Global warming would improve the weather in New York. (To be fair, this may have been a joke. It's hard to tell.)
• The attack on the World Trade Center occurred on 'Seven-Eleven'. (To clarify for non-US readers: A 'Seven-Eleven' is a convenience store.)
• Returning to the gold standard might be good, because 'there's something very nice about having something solid.' (From the statement, it is not entirely clear that the candidate knows what the gold standard was. He has this in common with the vast majority of US history students, who can't figure it out beyond the Wizard of Oz references.)
• He, the candidate, has an amazingly high IQ and is much cleverer than anyone who happens to be listening. (Empirical evidence is lacking.)

You get the idea. The fact that this person is sweeping primary elections across the nation indicates that perhaps – I venture to suggest timidly – we lack perspective.

Past Leaders: Heroes or Villains?

You are a writer. You wish to concoct a story or essay about the Past, that place nobody remembers clearly, but everyone has an opinion about. Who are the bad guys? Who are the good guys? Who decides, you, your publisher, or a straw poll of the diners at your local eatery?

Sure, you think Hitler was a jerk. That's pretty safe. But what about Genghis Khan? Do you think you could write a sympathetic portrayal of him and get away with it? Of course you could. But why? Just because he's been dead long enough?

Is there a statute of limitations on villainy?

Back to why I've been dissing the intelligence level of US citizens – or at least, the degree to which they are ill-informed about history. The Treasury Department has proposed banishing a former president to the back of the $20 bill. His place is to be taken by a likeness of Harriet Tubman, a conductor on the Underground Railroad, a freedom fighter, and an African American woman. Controversy is not about Ms Tubman – most people agree she's cool and should have her face on some money to show we are now enlightened enough to appreciate her – but on whether it's proper to 'diss' the former president.

The old president, one Andrew Jackson, killed at least one man in a duel. He fought up to 100 others. He was instrumental in engineering the forced migration of thousands of Native Americans from their homes. (That's usually called 'ethnic cleansing' these days, and last time I looked, it was considered an international crime.) Oh, and he hated paper money anyway, didn't trust the stuff.

But even the Washington Post has doubts. And the Washington Post writers are honourable people, right? So what gives?

It's what we call in the historical game Presentism: the tendency to regard the Past as if the participants were Us in funny costumes. This sort of attitude is fed by popular culture, such as the hit musical Hamilton, where everyone wears old-fashioned clothes but sings rap lyrics about the Early Republic. The musical has 16 Tony nominations, but isn't helping with the perspective thing.

Was is okay to be racist in the past because 'people back then didn't know better'? David Crockett knew better, and said so. People I talk to get mad when I bring him up. He wrote to a friend about Jackson and his successor, Martin Van Buren:

I have gone So far as to declare that if he martin vanburen is elected that I will leave the united States for I never will live under his kingdom. before I will Submit to his Government I will go to the wildes of Texas. I will consider that government a Paridice to what this will be. In fact at this time our Republican Government has dwindled almost into insignificancy our [boasted] land of liberty have almost Bowed to the yoke of Bondage. Our happy days of Republican principles are near at an end when a few is to transfer the many.
David Crockett to Charles Schultz, December 25, 1834.

That was Crockett's perspective on an imperial presidency. So what am I saying? You need to look at bit deeper, listen to more voices, and try to find a way to take advantage of that historical distance you have. I still don't know who 'should' be on money. I keep thinking about what Jesus said, and maybe we should just 'render unto Caesar'. But any question involving historical precedent is an opportunity for 'teachable moments'. Let's make something out of this one, and any other our writing minds come across.

Writing Right with Dmitri Archive

Dmitri Gheorgheni

16.05.16 Front Page

Back Issue Page