This picture is the standard ‘evolutionary progression’. There were many such images. Lots from the Victorian times put an unambiguous black man in the line-up, just before the white man who was always the ‘apex’ of evolution (such a phrase that has absolutely no validity; there is no ‘apex’; evolution continues, its what it does. If the world is still here in 1000 years people will all have USB sockets in their abdomens). Because science in Victorian times was the pursuit of rich white men. Like Darwin. If you were paid to ‘do science’ in the 19th Century, you were paid by rich white men to help them. And the presiding view was that black people were under-evolved white people. Egocentricity always places ‘you’ at the top of anything, unconsciously or otherwise.
They were wrong, obviously. Once Mendel came along with ‘genetics’, Darwin’s theories had acquired a mechanism for his brilliant theory. And showed that ‘men’ (I’m using this in the Victorian way to describe all the genders; don’t report me) are men. Regardless of colour.
You can’t find those images now. They’ve been cut. From science. From history. They’re unacceptable.
As are many things when judged in the wrong context. You shouldn’t judge ‘back then’ by standards of today. I have the same issue with slavery. The most awful, wrong, evil, horrendous thing ever. It is wrong now and it was wrong then. But it was not illegal. It was pretty much ‘state-sanctioned’. Locking up Galileo for proposing that the world was round was similarly ridiculous, in hindsight, but no-one died so it’s viewed with amusement rather than disgust. But basically; its is ALWAYS wrong to make judgments using today’s values on historical issues. They should only be judged within the context of their own time. Women couldn’t vote. I’m not saying that’s always a good thing, but that’s what it was. There was no DEI in 1900.
And thus to David Sullivan. The ‘co-chairman’ of West Ham United. Now the ‘ex’. Not sure who the other ‘co’ might be since David Gold died, but Sullivan has now ‘stood down’. Because a bunch of women have accused him of ‘historical sex offences’, over 30 years ago. When he was a ‘pornographer’. He published dirty books. Smut. Porn didn’t arrive in the click of a mouse back then, it came in magazines which paper shops kept ‘under the counter’. And the allegations against Sullivan are from the women who went to ‘star’ in his magazines and sleazy ‘movies’. And in his own words: ‘why would you own a sweet shop and not eat the sweets?’ There are no allegations of ‘rape’ or abuse, but, ‘looking back on it’ it could certainly NOW probably be seen as some form of coercion, that the boss offered ‘incentives’ to sex workers to possibly have sex with him, in return for a starring role. Which itself would be having sex with strangers.
I don’t like David Sullivan; he’s horrible. But I can’t help thinking that this is just cynical opportunism by judging what was probably voluntary behaviour then by today’s more obsessive standards. Jumping on the ‘me too’ bandwagon. Against a very rich man. Hmmmm…
I make no judgments. Historical or not.
Happy Sunday
A xxxx









