Historians and ethics

[NobleSavage]

Is there suck a thing other than telling the truth? When a person is dead are all their private communications fair game? Is there a different standard for public figures? We all probably have stuff we want to take to the grave with us... would you be upset if a historian dug through your electronic records after your death? What if they are records that a company controls and not you? Should Google be allowed to release your search history after you are dead?

 

[Bronzeage]

It would be interesting for a while, but after a while it would lose whatever lurid interest it held. It might be fun to discover that Ben Franklin had an interest in lesbian schoolgirl enema bondage porn, or Thomas Jefferson searched online for hypo-allergenic personal lubricants.

Beyond that, how certain can we be who it was that left that trail. There are no limit on anonymous accounts. It only takes a few minutes to become a living breathing email account holder, using whatever name comes to mind.

Any historian who wants to sift through decades of computer links to long dead websites and emails to vague recipients is welcome to that job. It might be easier to reassemble the Dead Sea scrolls.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that for private individuals, private should remain private. We have no obligation to provide accurate or unbiased information to future generations. If I am able to maintain an image of a loving and dedicated husband throughout my life, then the second email account I used to communicate with my girlfriends and prostitutes should die with me. It might be of interest to others to ferret out the secrets of past generations but their curiosity doesn't override my desire to see their curiosity go unsatisfied.

For public individuals, their public commincations should be the property of the public. What they do in their private life is their own business. It's tougher to draw the line there, though.

 

[bilby]

I notice that archaeologists seem to show increasing levels of respect to corpses based on how recently deceased they are; If a dig on a suspected Roman settlement finds the remains of a Roman villa that extends under a modern graveyard or cemetery, they shrug and say "Well there is doubtless some interesting stuff under the graveyard, but we can't dig there, so we will never know for sure"; while if the same dig encounters a 14th Century graveyard above the Roman remains, they will excavate the medieval remains too, after forensically confirming their age; and if they find a Roman mausoleum, its excavation becomes the highlight and centrepiece of their dig.

It seems that you can't dig up what is likely some living person's father; and you must be wary about digging up someone who might be identifiable as a specific living person's great¹⁸-grand father; but as long as the probability of even the most enthusiastic genealogist proving a familial link is exhausted, anything goes.

Perhaps the same is true of information about people's lives? I am not sure I want people to know exactly what my great-grandad got up to in a French brothel during WWI; but it is impersonal historical information to learn what Biggus Dickus Maximus was doing in the brothel at Herculaneum the day Mount Vesuvius went 'bang'.

 

[NobleSavage]

Beyond that, how certain can we be who it was that left that trail. There are no limit on anonymous accounts. It only takes a few minutes to become a living breathing email account holder, using whatever name comes to mind.

Well, it would be like always; "prominent" historians would decide what to tell everyone and write the text books. Or, maybe historians need to beef up on their statistics?

I think that for private individuals, private should remain private. We have no obligation to provide accurate or unbiased information to future generations. If I am able to maintain an image of a loving and dedicated husband throughout my life, then the second email account I used to communicate with my girlfriends and prostitutes should die with me. It might be of interest to others to ferret out the secrets of past generations but their curiosity doesn't override my desire to see their curiosity go unsatisfied.

For public individuals, their public commincations should be the property of the public. What they do in their private life is their own business. It's tougher to draw the line there, though.

Agreed.

I notice that archaeologists seem to show increasing levels of respect to corpses based on how recently deceased they are; If a dig on a suspected Roman settlement finds the remains of a Roman villa that extends under a modern graveyard or cemetery, they shrug and say "Well there is doubtless some interesting stuff under the graveyard, but we can't dig there, so we will never know for sure"; while if the same dig encounters a 14th Century graveyard above the Roman remains, they will excavate the medieval remains too, after forensically confirming their age; and if they find a Roman mausoleum, its excavation becomes the highlight and centrepiece of their dig.

It seems that you can't dig up what is likely some living person's father; and you must be wary about digging up someone who might be identifiable as a specific living person's great¹⁸-grand father; but as long as the probability of even the most enthusiastic genealogist proving a familial link is exhausted, anything goes.

Perhaps the same is true of information about people's lives? I am not sure I want people to know exactly what my great-grandad got up to in a French brothel during WWI; but it is impersonal historical information to learn what Biggus Dickus Maximus was doing in the brothel at Herculaneum the day Mount Vesuvius went 'bang'.

Bilby, have you ever thought of teaching? You should teach some bullshit required class and then take the students down interesting asides every day. I always loved professors who could never stay on track (Not saying you can't stay on track. Rather, staying on track can lead to some bad and boring education).

 

[untermensche]

Once one is dead there is no more shame.

No more anything.