The Past has Something to Say
What I believe about Colonialism:
When I think of colonialism I think of one country increasing their land mass by settling their citizens on land that is owned by others with the goal of owning it. Colonialism has been going on for thousands of years such as the Roman Empire conquering much of the known world. In more recent years, other countries, including the United States have participated in assuming it was their right to take whatever they want regardless of who already inhabits the land. Countries seize the land and settle its citizens in the form of a colony, an outpost of sorts. Those citizens live in the new land and recreate most aspects of their society but continue to be, ultimately, under the rule of the home country. As a first pass on my personal convictions and beliefs on colonialism; colonization is based on entitlement, arrogance, greed, and a total disregard for the people already living in the area being colonized. My belief is formed from learning how early colonists treated the indigenous people living in areas that were seized. I think of Roman influence in the time of Jesus and the disregard for the people who had been there before Rome. I recognize that not everyone might have been out to treat people they found poorly. It is possible that as explorers set out on voyages across oceans, their goal may not have been to conquer and acquire land but to learn more about the world.
I didn’t find many instances where Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of Sociology and author of “The War Against The Past[1] asserted colonialism was a right of the conquering country. His book, however, dealt with the mindset and process that people have when considering the past and how to move forward. Certainly, colonialism was part of the past. Furedi’s concerns centered around the way current trends promote eliminating and demonizing the past. One such ideology is called Year Zero, the concept that seeks a radical break from the past. It holds that society could be reborn by ridding itself of the toxic harm of the past which is the source of contemporary evils such as patriarchy, racism, and slavery[2]. Some historic occurrences were, in retrospect, generally agreed as a turning point, think apartheid in South Africa, the German’s systematic annihilation of Jewish people, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. While not an exhaustive list, each represents horrific inhumane treatment and loss.
Something that runs counter to what I thought I already knew is the concept that those who would like to rewrite history believe that the founding of the United States was actually more about perpetuating slavery rather than land and that the American Revolution was more about preserving racial oppression than independence from England[3]. Regardless if the motivation actually was to solidify slavery or simply to dare to journey into an unknown world I will never know. Yet, there is no denying that slavery happened, and it was beyond wrong. Rather than forgetting it and leaving room to possibly repeat the horrors, remember them and vow to stop any possibility of return.
Overall, the chapter that called out to me the most of this book was 6, The Struggle to Control Language. Language is how people and society communicate nearly most aspects of its existence. According to Furedi, by challenging traditional language, the meaning of those words are scrutinized then devalued. They can go from something informative to a painful trigger. Yet, current challenges of language essentially change the impact. Words that once meant something important or at least were minimally neutral, were declared null and void[4]. Currently, the buzz words that signal someone is disrespectful surround the use of pronouns to refer to others. Today, he or she may not resonate with some people and they and them are preferred. While I do not think it is my right to tell someone how to be addressed, I also do not want the language police LOOKING for perceived errors. Yet, loud voices are making changes through social pressure. One of my greater concerns are the false claims that are made in various aspects in the public sector. While I do not have access to the actual original claim, USA Today published a fact check about a false claim that the State of Michigan expanded their hate crime laws to include criminalizing utilization of the wrong pronoun. Their research concluded that the claim was false because the word pronoun does not appear in the bill nor did any of the legislators they interviewed confirmed that. The Bill in question allows for constitutionally protected free speech[5].
I think how words are used matter. After reading The War Against The Past, I am convinced that the vitriol surrounding language and words can be weaponized to be used by people who are more concerned with eradicating the past rather than putting it in its proper perspective and learning from it. The words we use do change. Years ago, children living with intellectual disabilities were diagnosed with Mental Retardation. The term came from the root word retard, to slow. In the mid-eighties people started using it as a derogatory slur calling neurotypical people a form of that word that ultimately changed the word. This example highlights that some word changes are good. Developmental disabilities or differences have a broader reach in helping people understand the needs of people living with a developmental diagnosis. What is bothersome is that it took people using the word as a bully’s weapon to make the change.
Finally, I think back to what Matthew Petrusek said about the importance of being able to disagree in order to take a lasting step into relationship[6]. He was talking about evangelism, but the premise works here. Scrutinizing the work and character of people in the past is good. Yet the wrongs committed in the past are being measured by today’s benefit of hindsight[7]. Culprits are unable to clarify or defend. It is easy to demonize when someone no longer has a voice. I cling to the hope that we can learn from the past so that our present is not stuck creating a future without the benefit of wisdom that comes from learning. I would be sad if the sum of my life were measured, solely by one bad day, event, or mistake.
[1] Kirkus Reviews, an American Book Review Magazine has been reviewing prepublication books since 1933, accessed Feb. 11, 2025. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/frank-furedi/the-war-against-the-past/
[2] Furedi,The War Against The Past (Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2024), 67.
[3] Frank Furedi, 70.
[4] Furedi, 153.
[5] Jeoedy McCreary, “False Claim Michigan bill would make using a person’s wrong pronouns a felony”[Fact check], USA Today, Published 1:27 pm, ET, Aug. 9, 2023, accessed Feb. 12, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/08/09/no-michigan-bill-wont-criminalize-use-of-wrong-pronouns-fact-check/70549854007/
[6] Matthew Petrusek, Evangelism and Ideology, How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Park Ridge, IL: 2023),21.
[7] Frank Furedi, 3-4.
About the Author
Diane Tuttle
8 responses to “The Past has Something to Say”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Diane,
Thank you for your post.
In your understanding, in what ways does the current scrutiny and transformation of language affect societal communication and the preservation of historical context?
Hi Shela, Thank you for the question.
Scrutiny of language isn’t all bad, I think it is the demonization that happens because some people feel offended by certain words.My frustration is that sometimes the focus is placed on words rather than actions. I am also angry about certain things going on today where people discrimminate against others – still today. But I would prefer the anger be focused on the actions rather than the choice of words.
Diane, thanks for this thoughtful analysis.
In your conclusion, you express a hope that society learns from past mistakes. What specific actions do you believe individuals and communities can take to ensure that historical lessons are not forgotten, and which lessons might you want to draw?
Hi Debbie, Thanks for your question. I think looking in the rear view mirror you can see where you have been. If you look back and see that actions caused harm, then you can decide how you want to behave in the future. The sins of many of us today may not be colonialism, recognizing sinfulness from history can help us look back at our own lives to see where our sinfulness lies. Every human commits sinful actions. Jesus modeled forgiveness (woman at the well, Peter, adulterous woman, tax collector – just to name some). Invariably, those people went on to change their lives through forgiveness and turning their lives back toward Jesus. I believe it starts with our personal repentance that does not need to yield to cultural pressure
Thanks, Diane. I appreciate your focus on language. There certainly is an attempt to disassociate ourselves from the past by using newer, PC words, while shaming those who don’t get it right. I do wonder how this generation will be judged by future generations.
How does a Christ-centered person respond, guided by the teaching of Jesus, without giving into cultural pressure?
Hi Graham, good question. I think the best way to respond is to try to be kind and thoughtful while still being true to the teaching and call of Jesus on our lives. I don’t have to agree with everything, or anything, that some people do or say, but I have to ask myself if my response further shuts them down or opens the door for dialogue. I would hope thaelatter. Being respectful in my tone, words, and stance would be a good start.
Diane, you express concern that revising historical narratives can sometimes lead to an oversimplification of the past, measuring it by today’s standards. However, you also acknowledge that some changes in language and historical understanding can be positive, such as shifting from outdated terminology for disabilities. How do we strike a balance between critically reassessing history to foster accountability and ensuring that we don’t erase or distort it in a way that prevents meaningful learning?
Hi Diane, I always appreciate your posts’ balanced, thoughtful tone. I also appreciate your emphasis on language. This was something I touched on a bit in my post, too. Your writing has me thinking about the more humanizing language of “developmental disabilities or differences” compared to more negative words used in the past. However, I know it takes time for people to catch up with word usage. Do you still come into contact with people who use more derogatory terms concerning people with developmental disabilities or differences? If so, what is your approach to gently correcting them?
I must admit, I didn’t even have current language because, in French, I was taught the word “handicapé,” which is usually the word my brain chooses to use. However, a French-speaking friend told me the latest language is “personnes à mobilité réduite (PMR).” I didn’t mean to turn this into a language lesson. Thanks for the great post.