At first, it sounds obvious. Of course people are people. That sort of truism is no more than tautology. But follow the idea to its logical end and you begin to get a grasp on why history is so important. People are people, and have always been. They have always had the same physical and emotional needs, they have always had close relationships with those around them, they have always enjoyed good food, they have always wanted more, they have always been curious about the world. They have felt the same aches and pains we do when they worked hard. They have felt the same stress when under pressure. They have felt cold or hot or generally uncomfortable. They have worried about their appearance. They have liked beautiful things. They have made things and learned things and understood things. They have been experts.
This is not usually understood by those who study history at a junior level, because many history textbooks have a somewhat patronising view of earlier cultures. There is a deep seated conviction that history has been leading up to now, rather than evolving (and I use that word deliberately) any old how and things being the way they are by chance. We feel we are the culmination of millennia of civilisation, rather than the result. This is reinforced by textbook attitudes. In an 1828 social sciences book, Muslims are described as "those who believe in Mahomet, an impostor in Arabia, who lived 600 years after Christ, and pretended to be inspired." Now, even those who resent Islam would be shocked to see that in an official text. But in another two hundred years, how will our textbooks be interpreted?
Since the 1970s there has been a move in history classes towards describing social roles rather than events, particularly when studying the Middle Ages. So we learn about peasants, who were poor, uneducated farmers; nobles, who were wealthy, taught to fight, and had arranged marriages; and priests/monks who were the only people who could read and could be from any class. Those with even a small amount of further knowledge can spot great wholes in this. Where are the exceptions? What about craftsmen such as blacksmiths and millers? They clearly are not farmers, nor are they nobles or members of the priesthood. How about the nobles who did marry for love? Such a marriage would have to be advantageous to the family, but it was still possible. Or the clerics who couldn't read? Furthermore, the idea that peasants and women were treated like property is objectionable. I acknowledge that they may have had that legal status, although that was certainly not always the case. But I do not believe that men thought of their wives in the same way as their sheep. A healthy relationship is not an innovation of the 20th century. (I could list examples, but they will each be specific, and I am talking of generalisations.) I mentioned earlier that an implication of "people are people" is that there were experts in every time and place. Re-enactors realise this fairly quickly, when they try to make combs out of horn, or make a renaissance dress. Their skills were honed to a fine art, and we are unable to replicate them.
This idea is important for two reasons. Firstly, it allows us to look at history more honestly, and to see ourselves in the place of those who lived then. Secondly, and more importantly to most of us, it allows us to take a look at other cultures in a new light. "Different" does not mean "less". Just because Western culture is globally dominant, does not mean it is the best. I personally believe that democracy is not perfect, although I prefer it to other current systems, and I think that to believe ourselves perfect will lull us into complacency. Other cultures have the right to be different, and we need to be aware that they come from a very different past, and so will each the future in a different way. When we honestly believe that the natural progress of other nations will not bring them to a state in which their people will be safe, then I understand the reason to act. But in the development of our culture, we have at times been cruel or unjust, and yet have reached our current state of "perfection" without interference from a "more advanced" group. I think it is vital to acknowledge that people everywhere have the same needs and wants, and will find ways to come closer to their dreams, even if it is in ways we are not familiar with. We live in a postmodern world, where we daily acknowledge the presence of multiple truths. Let us acknowledge the presence of multiple moralities and multiple contexts and accept that they will produce multiple standards of "civilisation". Different is not less. Do not treat it as such.
