Comparing past and present through modern eyes merely compares two modern views
Evidence
A common form of comparison involves the use of modern Western stateĀ ments about non-modern or non-Western societies, thus, in effect, arguing in a circle. If, for example, we compare the Crusades with current events in the Middle East, and do so on the basis of a modern Western historian of the CruĀ sades, then we are in fact not making a comparison between two sequences of events at different times, but between two modern views, one of the medieval, the other of the present-day Middle East, the ļ¬rst inevitably contaminated by the second. Such a comparison is of little value, since the similarities lie not in the events or situations, but in the eye of the observer. ā Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 717
Categorization
Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims
- SEED: Article angle: the reflexive trap in every historical analogy ā from Crusades to Munich to 9/11 to Ukraine ā and how to break out of it.
- QUESTION: How does one ever make a legitimate historical comparison if the mediating lens is always modern? The passage gestures at the fix (authentic contemporary documents) without fully spelling it out.